Collected: More Reviews of the 2019 Lexus ES 350 & ES 300h

Posted by Kevin on June 25th, 2018

Now two weeks after the first reviews of the 2019 Lexus ES hit the Internet, let’s look at some more driving impressions of the new sedan.

Pat Devereux of Top Gear could not have been more effusive in his review of the ES 300h:

This is a moment for you to consider what driving you really do, rather than what you would like to do, but don’t. While [Top Gear] will go to its grave defending your right to having a drift-worthy V8 that consumes tyres and petrol in equal measure, there are some of us who just want or need to get somewhere in the least stressful way possible. Often with luggage and passengers. For those people, cars like the Volvo S90 and now the new Lexus ES are not just a sensible choice, but the correct one.

The Gear Patrol review from Alex Kalogiannis is even-handed and sensible:

The legacy of the ES is secure. Within its element, it’s the best its ever been with contemporary looks and tech conveniences. The F Sport accoutrement only improves things, as long as buyers go in with the right expectations. The ride is smooth, the cabin is a comfortable place to be and it’s easy to see why Lexus loyalists have stuck with it for a few decades. This generation ES is far from a radical upgrade, but as [Chief Engineer] Sakakibara-san states, the pleasure is in the little things it consistently gets right.

Lexus ES Hybrid

Jake Lingeman from Autoweek has posted a very positive review of the ES, but what I wanted to highlight is his take on the Remote Touch controller:

There’s been a lot said about Lexus’ patented mouse pad/slider-joystick infotainment control, and I have a few opinions of my own. The first generation was not good. You had to look at the slider and the screen to find the right time to click. The company added little faux detents, so the cursor would sort of stick on the function you were looking for. It got better. Then it increased the screen size a few years ago to the 12.3 inches and got rid of the joystick/slider for a finger-controlled mouse pad. There was too much ground to cover. Now it’s refined again with separate screen divisions, with little tactile vibrations on the mouse pad where the screens meet so you sort of know where you are.

It wasn’t completely intuitive, but after a day in the car I was…serviceable with it. A week or so and it might be second nature. Whether it should take a week to learn how to use it is another issue. I think that’s an average amount of time; some in the office think that’s too long.

Lexus ES: Sixth Generation
Popular Stories

Sorry. No data so far.

Comments
S
Cancelling the IS will indeed be a brand suicide move since it means removing the gateway car. No luxury brand can exist without a gateway product. I doubt it will happen unless we are at the point where sedans account for less than 10% of total car sales.

If the recent boom of the CLA sedan is any indication, Lexus actually needs to bring the CT back and probably a CS as well for the emerging market. It is crucial to have an affordable product that gets new customers into the brand. That's the role IS should be playing, and it couldn't play that role very well because of, well, ES.

The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
S
Cancelling the IS will indeed be a brand suicide move since it means removing the gateway car. No luxury brand can exist without a gateway product. I doubt it will happen unless we are at the point where sedans account for less than 10% of total car sales.

If the recent boom of the CLA sedan is any indication, Lexus actually needs to bring the CT back and probably a CS as well for the emerging market. It is crucial to have an affordable product that gets new customers into the brand. That's the role IS should be playing, and it couldn't play that role very well because of, well, ES.

The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
S
Cancelling the IS will indeed be a brand suicide move since it means removing the gateway car. No luxury brand can exist without a gateway product. I doubt it will happen unless we are at the point where sedans account for less than 10% of total car sales.

If the recent boom of the CLA sedan is any indication, Lexus actually needs to bring the CT back and probably a CS as well for the emerging market. It is crucial to have an affordable product that gets new customers into the brand. That's the role IS should be playing, and it couldn't play that role very well because of, well, ES.

The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
maiaramdan
Ian Schmidt
It'd be one thing if ES was somehow destroying all those cars by subterfuge or some illegal maneuvers by TMC (against themselves?), but the reality is that it's a hell of a car for the price. The fact that no other automaker has any idea how to compete with it either is telling.

Honestly I feel the opposite
If it's a hell of a car why Toyota dump a lot of things inside the Avalon as for example the red leather seats and the big HUD which both can be found in the Rav4 & Camry

I think Toyota putting itself in a suicidal situation and by killing IS & GS they can kill Lexus brand itself because there will be no difference between Lexus and Toyota
maiaramdan
Ian Schmidt
It'd be one thing if ES was somehow destroying all those cars by subterfuge or some illegal maneuvers by TMC (against themselves?), but the reality is that it's a hell of a car for the price. The fact that no other automaker has any idea how to compete with it either is telling.

Honestly I feel the opposite
If it's a hell of a car why Toyota dump a lot of things inside the Avalon as for example the red leather seats and the big HUD which both can be found in the Rav4 & Camry

I think Toyota putting itself in a suicidal situation and by killing IS & GS they can kill Lexus brand itself because there will be no difference between Lexus and Toyota
maiaramdan
Ian Schmidt
It'd be one thing if ES was somehow destroying all those cars by subterfuge or some illegal maneuvers by TMC (against themselves?), but the reality is that it's a hell of a car for the price. The fact that no other automaker has any idea how to compete with it either is telling.

Honestly I feel the opposite
If it's a hell of a car why Toyota dump a lot of things inside the Avalon as for example the red leather seats and the big HUD which both can be found in the Rav4 & Camry

I think Toyota putting itself in a suicidal situation and by killing IS & GS they can kill Lexus brand itself because there will be no difference between Lexus and Toyota
maiaramdan
Ian Schmidt
It'd be one thing if ES was somehow destroying all those cars by subterfuge or some illegal maneuvers by TMC (against themselves?), but the reality is that it's a hell of a car for the price. The fact that no other automaker has any idea how to compete with it either is telling.

Honestly I feel the opposite
If it's a hell of a car why Toyota dump a lot of things inside the Avalon as for example the red leather seats and the big HUD which both can be found in the Rav4 & Camry

I think Toyota putting itself in a suicidal situation and by killing IS & GS they can kill Lexus brand itself because there will be no difference between Lexus and Toyota
S
zeusus
The ES is not a competitor of A6, 5, E.

It is a competitor of A4, 3, C.

Please a provide YOUR examples of why the ES barely competes in that segment. Quality? Performance? Sales?
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
S
zeusus
The ES is not a competitor of A6, 5, E.

It is a competitor of A4, 3, C.

Please a provide YOUR examples of why the ES barely competes in that segment. Quality? Performance? Sales?
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
S
zeusus
The ES is not a competitor of A6, 5, E.

It is a competitor of A4, 3, C.

Please a provide YOUR examples of why the ES barely competes in that segment. Quality? Performance? Sales?
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
S
zeusus
The ES is not a competitor of A6, 5, E.

It is a competitor of A4, 3, C.

Please a provide YOUR examples of why the ES barely competes in that segment. Quality? Performance? Sales?
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
L
ssun30
The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD. In automotive history, it is usual for RWD to become FWD cars. It will soon happen again with the BMW 1 Series, 2 generations RWD, a USP, and BMW is ready to kill it in favor of FWD. They will come out unscathed thanks to badge. It is fare rarer, but it does happen, that a FWD car becomes RWD. After the Alfa 155, 156 and 159, the Giulia is now again a RWD car. The Jaguar X-Type that was FWD, now with the XE is RWD. Even more actual and significant because of the segment, while most CUVs the were RWD become FWD, Ford will be doing the contrary, and the new Ford Expedition will be RWD instead of FWD like the present one.




Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
L
ssun30
The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD. In automotive history, it is usual for RWD to become FWD cars. It will soon happen again with the BMW 1 Series, 2 generations RWD, a USP, and BMW is ready to kill it in favor of FWD. They will come out unscathed thanks to badge. It is fare rarer, but it does happen, that a FWD car becomes RWD. After the Alfa 155, 156 and 159, the Giulia is now again a RWD car. The Jaguar X-Type that was FWD, now with the XE is RWD. Even more actual and significant because of the segment, while most CUVs the were RWD become FWD, Ford will be doing the contrary, and the new Ford Expedition will be RWD instead of FWD like the present one.




Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
L
ssun30
The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD. In automotive history, it is usual for RWD to become FWD cars. It will soon happen again with the BMW 1 Series, 2 generations RWD, a USP, and BMW is ready to kill it in favor of FWD. They will come out unscathed thanks to badge. It is fare rarer, but it does happen, that a FWD car becomes RWD. After the Alfa 155, 156 and 159, the Giulia is now again a RWD car. The Jaguar X-Type that was FWD, now with the XE is RWD. Even more actual and significant because of the segment, while most CUVs the were RWD become FWD, Ford will be doing the contrary, and the new Ford Expedition will be RWD instead of FWD like the present one.




Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
L
ssun30
The "should they kill the ES" topic is another exhausting discussion that pops up again and again. The answer is a definitive yes, it should have been killed in 1989. But after three decades Lexus is now way past the point of no return, the answer is they can't. The question now is whether TMC could make the best out of this situation.
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD. In automotive history, it is usual for RWD to become FWD cars. It will soon happen again with the BMW 1 Series, 2 generations RWD, a USP, and BMW is ready to kill it in favor of FWD. They will come out unscathed thanks to badge. It is fare rarer, but it does happen, that a FWD car becomes RWD. After the Alfa 155, 156 and 159, the Giulia is now again a RWD car. The Jaguar X-Type that was FWD, now with the XE is RWD. Even more actual and significant because of the segment, while most CUVs the were RWD become FWD, Ford will be doing the contrary, and the new Ford Expedition will be RWD instead of FWD like the present one.




Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
zeusus
Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
zeusus
Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
zeusus
Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
zeusus
Sakura
I respectfully disagree. The Lexus ES isn't a competitor to the A4, 3, or C.
1) Layout. A4 is longitudinal FWD with AWD offering. 3 and C are both RWD.
2) Driving dynamics/handling. The A4 Quattro, 3, and C all handle better than the Lexus ES and Lexus ES F-Sport.
3) Performance. The A4 Quattro, 3 and C all outperform the Lexus ES.
4) The Lexus ES is too luxurious compared to the A4, 3, and C. The A4, 3, and C seem like a step down in quality and luxury compared to the ES.
5) The Lexus ES has more space and bigger than the A4, 3, and C by a huge amount.

Overall - the Lexus IS350 makes a better competitor to the A4, 3, and C. The sizing, handling, performance, luxurious features, and etc... are more closely related. I believe the Lexus ES hovers in a slot above the IS, A4, 3, and C competition, but below the GS, E, 5, and A6 competition. I don't think the Lexus ES has an actual German competitor is one of the reasons why I allude the Lexus ES to be in competition with the Buick, Acura TLX, and Genesis.
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
S
Levi
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

zeusus
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
Agreed - the general public doesn't care about FWD vs RWD. Just because the general public doesn't care - doesn't mean the Lexus ES is a proper competitor to the A4, C, and 3. That's like saying the general public will think a Toyota Camry is a similar car to the Lexus IS. Or a Buick Regal is the same as a BMW 340i.

Firstly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A4, 3, and C. Because I think the Lexus ES is a bigger car, more luxurious, and a better overall car compared to the A4, 3 and C Class. Also the A4, 3, and C are more sportier compared to the ES.
Secondly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A6, 5, and E. Because I think the Lexus ES is not as luxurious nor it drives as well as the A6, 5, or E.

I think the Lexus ES falls in between the A4, 3, C and A6, 5 and E. In this grey area, where the Germans don't have a competitor. This is why I think it competes with Buick, Acura TLX or Genesis.

Sure - price plays a good part in where the ES belongs in a segment but its only one part. Just because a car cost a specific amount - doesn't mean it 100% competes with each other. Other factors are considered, like size, type of car, performance and etc...

Yes. No one knows for sure. But on paper - its impossible for the Lexus ES or ES F-Sport to handle better than the A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its simply because its not built for it (on paper anyways).
Note: For longitudinal FWD layouts; the front-to-rear weight distribution of the car as a whole will be preferable to a transverse orientation where mass is accumulated at the front of the chassis. This should make a car more predictable and is advantageous to all-wheel drive vehicles. The in-line nature of these setups also allows manufacturers to implement complex all-wheel drive systems using torsen differentials and viscous couplings directly down the line from the transmission.
This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
S
Levi
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

zeusus
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
Agreed - the general public doesn't care about FWD vs RWD. Just because the general public doesn't care - doesn't mean the Lexus ES is a proper competitor to the A4, C, and 3. That's like saying the general public will think a Toyota Camry is a similar car to the Lexus IS. Or a Buick Regal is the same as a BMW 340i.

Firstly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A4, 3, and C. Because I think the Lexus ES is a bigger car, more luxurious, and a better overall car compared to the A4, 3 and C Class. Also the A4, 3, and C are more sportier compared to the ES.
Secondly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A6, 5, and E. Because I think the Lexus ES is not as luxurious nor it drives as well as the A6, 5, or E.

I think the Lexus ES falls in between the A4, 3, C and A6, 5 and E. In this grey area, where the Germans don't have a competitor. This is why I think it competes with Buick, Acura TLX or Genesis.

Sure - price plays a good part in where the ES belongs in a segment but its only one part. Just because a car cost a specific amount - doesn't mean it 100% competes with each other. Other factors are considered, like size, type of car, performance and etc...

Yes. No one knows for sure. But on paper - its impossible for the Lexus ES or ES F-Sport to handle better than the A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its simply because its not built for it (on paper anyways).
Note: For longitudinal FWD layouts; the front-to-rear weight distribution of the car as a whole will be preferable to a transverse orientation where mass is accumulated at the front of the chassis. This should make a car more predictable and is advantageous to all-wheel drive vehicles. The in-line nature of these setups also allows manufacturers to implement complex all-wheel drive systems using torsen differentials and viscous couplings directly down the line from the transmission.
This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
S
Levi
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

zeusus
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
Agreed - the general public doesn't care about FWD vs RWD. Just because the general public doesn't care - doesn't mean the Lexus ES is a proper competitor to the A4, C, and 3. That's like saying the general public will think a Toyota Camry is a similar car to the Lexus IS. Or a Buick Regal is the same as a BMW 340i.

Firstly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A4, 3, and C. Because I think the Lexus ES is a bigger car, more luxurious, and a better overall car compared to the A4, 3 and C Class. Also the A4, 3, and C are more sportier compared to the ES.
Secondly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A6, 5, and E. Because I think the Lexus ES is not as luxurious nor it drives as well as the A6, 5, or E.

I think the Lexus ES falls in between the A4, 3, C and A6, 5 and E. In this grey area, where the Germans don't have a competitor. This is why I think it competes with Buick, Acura TLX or Genesis.

Sure - price plays a good part in where the ES belongs in a segment but its only one part. Just because a car cost a specific amount - doesn't mean it 100% competes with each other. Other factors are considered, like size, type of car, performance and etc...

Yes. No one knows for sure. But on paper - its impossible for the Lexus ES or ES F-Sport to handle better than the A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its simply because its not built for it (on paper anyways).
Note: For longitudinal FWD layouts; the front-to-rear weight distribution of the car as a whole will be preferable to a transverse orientation where mass is accumulated at the front of the chassis. This should make a car more predictable and is advantageous to all-wheel drive vehicles. The in-line nature of these setups also allows manufacturers to implement complex all-wheel drive systems using torsen differentials and viscous couplings directly down the line from the transmission.
This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
S
Levi
Why do you leave out the Passat or Aerton, which is an Audi in all aspects except engine layout? And do not mention Audi and driving dynamics in the same sentence. I have yet to drive a well handling Audi that is not an R8).
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

zeusus
The general consumer does not care about FWD vs RWD, enthusiasts claim to think it is important (because thats the intellectual bubble enthusiasts live in) but the reality is no.

Sure there are some buyers who look at Buick, Acura and Genesis though there are plenty of buyers who are only willing to look at the top tier premium luxury brands.

So if given the choice of the obvious top three that Lexus competes with, which factors have the most influence with what cars buyers cross shop the ES with?

Could price be one of the most important factors? And what price range is the ES in?

Lastly, your assumption that the "A4, C, 3 all handle better than the ES and ES F-sport", is thrown around as if it were some fact, it isn't fact, none of us know. Maybe when comparisons come out we'll have a better idea. And it would be interesting to see which cars the mags compare the ES with.
Agreed - the general public doesn't care about FWD vs RWD. Just because the general public doesn't care - doesn't mean the Lexus ES is a proper competitor to the A4, C, and 3. That's like saying the general public will think a Toyota Camry is a similar car to the Lexus IS. Or a Buick Regal is the same as a BMW 340i.

Firstly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A4, 3, and C. Because I think the Lexus ES is a bigger car, more luxurious, and a better overall car compared to the A4, 3 and C Class. Also the A4, 3, and C are more sportier compared to the ES.
Secondly - I don't think the Lexus ES competes with the A6, 5, and E. Because I think the Lexus ES is not as luxurious nor it drives as well as the A6, 5, or E.

I think the Lexus ES falls in between the A4, 3, C and A6, 5 and E. In this grey area, where the Germans don't have a competitor. This is why I think it competes with Buick, Acura TLX or Genesis.

Sure - price plays a good part in where the ES belongs in a segment but its only one part. Just because a car cost a specific amount - doesn't mean it 100% competes with each other. Other factors are considered, like size, type of car, performance and etc...

Yes. No one knows for sure. But on paper - its impossible for the Lexus ES or ES F-Sport to handle better than the A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its simply because its not built for it (on paper anyways).
Note: For longitudinal FWD layouts; the front-to-rear weight distribution of the car as a whole will be preferable to a transverse orientation where mass is accumulated at the front of the chassis. This should make a car more predictable and is advantageous to all-wheel drive vehicles. The in-line nature of these setups also allows manufacturers to implement complex all-wheel drive systems using torsen differentials and viscous couplings directly down the line from the transmission.
This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
S
Levi
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD.
In an earlier post I mentioned how the original 89' ES could be based on the RWD Mark II platform instead of the V20 narrow-body Camry. That way the ES could be a much more likeable car and the brand would have a much more favorable image than it has now. I didn't mean 'killing' the ES literally, rather it was a scenario in which the GS never existed. Go search it in the forum (with keyword "Mark II" maybe?).
S
Levi
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD.
In an earlier post I mentioned how the original 89' ES could be based on the RWD Mark II platform instead of the V20 narrow-body Camry. That way the ES could be a much more likeable car and the brand would have a much more favorable image than it has now. I didn't mean 'killing' the ES literally, rather it was a scenario in which the GS never existed. Go search it in the forum (with keyword "Mark II" maybe?).
S
Levi
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD.
In an earlier post I mentioned how the original 89' ES could be based on the RWD Mark II platform instead of the V20 narrow-body Camry. That way the ES could be a much more likeable car and the brand would have a much more favorable image than it has now. I didn't mean 'killing' the ES literally, rather it was a scenario in which the GS never existed. Go search it in the forum (with keyword "Mark II" maybe?).
S
Levi
What do you understand by "killing" the ES? The badge? They could keep the badge and make it RWD.
In an earlier post I mentioned how the original 89' ES could be based on the RWD Mark II platform instead of the V20 narrow-body Camry. That way the ES could be a much more likeable car and the brand would have a much more favorable image than it has now. I didn't mean 'killing' the ES literally, rather it was a scenario in which the GS never existed. Go search it in the forum (with keyword "Mark II" maybe?).
L
Sakura
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
You are beating a dead horse, even though I agree with you (except Audi).

First of all, we at LE are not the Lexus board.

Next, AWD will always be a compromise in ICEVs. Those compromises vanish with BEVs. Where car makers are wrong, really wrong about, and I wonder why you do not criticize that about BEVs, is that RWD BEVs are truly far better, cheaper, space efficient, and more simple and durable than FWD BEVs. Except Tesla and BMW i3, all other BEVs are FWD. With the torque they have, they are terrible to drive. With ESC, even more precisely programmable in BEVs than ICEVs, RWD will not be an issue for consumers. It is time for carmakers to stop transforming inefficient FWD ICEVs into BEVs.

Then, back to ICEVs, while FF-L is theoretically better than FF-T, it remains FF, and the difference between FF-L and FF-T is not a great as FR(-L) to FF-L.

We have already mentioned, that execution of a certain layout it more important than the selection of a certain layout. What good is it to select the right layout if it is not well implemented? Think of how IS XE20 was not praised initially for handling, although it was RWD.

I will repeat, that while FF-L might be better than FF-T, Audi is not well executed from my experience, and thus not comparable to the two other German rivals.

While FF-L is indeed great in Subaru products as F4-L, and Subaru has successful sales, although they market their symmetrical AWD system and Flat4 engine as a value-added USP, they are not bought for these characteristics, but rather for the fact of having AWD and their (now past) perception of reliability. Yet, in consumers eyes the Outback does not hold a candle to the objectively inferior A6 Avant. More than that, Subaru's AWD system in becoming less mechanical and more FWD-biased, thus negating their layout advantage compared to F4-T competitors.

What you are asking is impossible, and more than that incomplete. Passenger vehicles are all about space utilization. Safety standards affect that even more; front overhangs have no function other than crash safety, but the take space, making a vehicle longer without adding passenger or cargo volume.

I have already mentioned, that to get the most out of a given footprint, while not compromising handling -- and that is being RWD -- cars should have a FR-L layout with V4 and V6 (both 90° angle). But this just cannot happen anymore. The reason why cars with V6 have a long hood, is because they all have derivatives with I4 or V8 which are longer, thus V6s are usually inefficient in space utilization, there is empty space.

Platform layout and engine configuration are highly interrelated. First, the more parts different engine configurations can share, the cheaper to develop and produce. Thus I4 and I6. 60° V6 has always been a stand alone engine. 90° V6 can be derived from a 90° V8 as is mostly the case today with non-Japanese makers, but these are big engines for expensive cars, and as the I4 was already established a 90° V4 could not be cost efficient anymore, and many carmakers had no 90° V8 to derive it from.

Notice, that because of I4, and car makers have no incentives to make RWD cars. Because the 1 Series will have no more I6, it will be FWD. Same case with Volvo, even though it was FWD with I6 in transverse layout (Daewoo Magnus/Chevrolet Evanda is another notable exception).

I don't want to tell to go buy the FF-L Audi A4 that you praise so much, but be prepared that what is praise about the 3 German is (unfortunately) not the reason why consumers buy them. They buy them primarily because of the badge, secondarily, because they 'feel' better, third because of market value, related to desirability due to the two first points. If the ES can give consumers a better 'feel' and consumers are aware of it through good sales promotion, it will be a success, regardless of what journalist praise about the Germans: handling and infotainment (iDrive, MMI, MBUX).

There is a big discrepancy between Journalists and Consumers. Consumers need Journalists to help with their buying decision, but Journalists cater to Enthusiasts, that only want Journalists to confirm their personal preferences. That is a big problem for the Consumer, and ultimately for the general Carmaker.
L
Sakura
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
You are beating a dead horse, even though I agree with you (except Audi).

First of all, we at LE are not the Lexus board.

Next, AWD will always be a compromise in ICEVs. Those compromises vanish with BEVs. Where car makers are wrong, really wrong about, and I wonder why you do not criticize that about BEVs, is that RWD BEVs are truly far better, cheaper, space efficient, and more simple and durable than FWD BEVs. Except Tesla and BMW i3, all other BEVs are FWD. With the torque they have, they are terrible to drive. With ESC, even more precisely programmable in BEVs than ICEVs, RWD will not be an issue for consumers. It is time for carmakers to stop transforming inefficient FWD ICEVs into BEVs.

Then, back to ICEVs, while FF-L is theoretically better than FF-T, it remains FF, and the difference between FF-L and FF-T is not a great as FR(-L) to FF-L.

We have already mentioned, that execution of a certain layout it more important than the selection of a certain layout. What good is it to select the right layout if it is not well implemented? Think of how IS XE20 was not praised initially for handling, although it was RWD.

I will repeat, that while FF-L might be better than FF-T, Audi is not well executed from my experience, and thus not comparable to the two other German rivals.

While FF-L is indeed great in Subaru products as F4-L, and Subaru has successful sales, although they market their symmetrical AWD system and Flat4 engine as a value-added USP, they are not bought for these characteristics, but rather for the fact of having AWD and their (now past) perception of reliability. Yet, in consumers eyes the Outback does not hold a candle to the objectively inferior A6 Avant. More than that, Subaru's AWD system in becoming less mechanical and more FWD-biased, thus negating their layout advantage compared to F4-T competitors.

What you are asking is impossible, and more than that incomplete. Passenger vehicles are all about space utilization. Safety standards affect that even more; front overhangs have no function other than crash safety, but the take space, making a vehicle longer without adding passenger or cargo volume.

I have already mentioned, that to get the most out of a given footprint, while not compromising handling -- and that is being RWD -- cars should have a FR-L layout with V4 and V6 (both 90° angle). But this just cannot happen anymore. The reason why cars with V6 have a long hood, is because they all have derivatives with I4 or V8 which are longer, thus V6s are usually inefficient in space utilization, there is empty space.

Platform layout and engine configuration are highly interrelated. First, the more parts different engine configurations can share, the cheaper to develop and produce. Thus I4 and I6. 60° V6 has always been a stand alone engine. 90° V6 can be derived from a 90° V8 as is mostly the case today with non-Japanese makers, but these are big engines for expensive cars, and as the I4 was already established a 90° V4 could not be cost efficient anymore, and many carmakers had no 90° V8 to derive it from.

Notice, that because of I4, and car makers have no incentives to make RWD cars. Because the 1 Series will have no more I6, it will be FWD. Same case with Volvo, even though it was FWD with I6 in transverse layout (Daewoo Magnus/Chevrolet Evanda is another notable exception).

I don't want to tell to go buy the FF-L Audi A4 that you praise so much, but be prepared that what is praise about the 3 German is (unfortunately) not the reason why consumers buy them. They buy them primarily because of the badge, secondarily, because they 'feel' better, third because of market value, related to desirability due to the two first points. If the ES can give consumers a better 'feel' and consumers are aware of it through good sales promotion, it will be a success, regardless of what journalist praise about the Germans: handling and infotainment (iDrive, MMI, MBUX).

There is a big discrepancy between Journalists and Consumers. Consumers need Journalists to help with their buying decision, but Journalists cater to Enthusiasts, that only want Journalists to confirm their personal preferences. That is a big problem for the Consumer, and ultimately for the general Carmaker.
L
Sakura
VW Passat and Aerton are both transversely FWD layouts. The Audi A4 is a longitudinal FWD layout. Longitudinal FWD is by far more superior than transverse FWD layouts.

This is why I think the ES will fall short in handling when compared to A4 Quattro, 3, and C. Its transverse FWD layout is holding it back. Even if its fitted with AWD - a transverse AWD system isn't as a longitudinal AWD system.
You are beating a dead horse, even though I agree with you (except Audi).

First of all, we at LE are not the Lexus board.

Next, AWD will always be a compromise in ICEVs. Those compromises vanish with BEVs. Where car makers are wrong, really wrong about, and I wonder why you do not criticize that about BEVs, is that RWD BEVs are truly far better, cheaper, space efficient, and more simple and durable than FWD BEVs. Except Tesla and BMW i3, all other BEVs are FWD. With the torque they have, they are terrible to drive. With ESC, even more precisely programmable in BEVs than ICEVs, RWD will not be an issue for consumers. It is time for carmakers to stop transforming inefficient FWD ICEVs into BEVs.

Then, back to ICEVs, while FF-L is theoretically better than FF-T, it remains FF, and the difference between FF-L and FF-T is not a great as FR(-L) to FF-L.

We have already mentioned, that execution of a certain layout it more important than the selection of a certain layout. What good is it to select the right layout if it is not well implemented? Think of how IS XE20 was not praised initially for handling, although it was RWD.

I will repeat, that while FF-L might be better than FF-T, Audi is not well executed from my experience, and thus not comparable to the two other German rivals.

While FF-L is indeed great in Subaru products as F4-L, and Subaru has successful sales, although they market their symmetrical AWD system and Flat4 engine as a value-added USP, they are not bought for these characteristics, but rather for the fact of having AWD and their (now past) perception of reliability. Yet, in consumers eyes the Outback does not hold a candle to the objectively inferior A6 Avant. More than that, Subaru's AWD system in becoming less mechanical and more FWD-biased, thus negating their layout advantage compared to F4-T competitors.

What you are asking is impossible, and more than that incomplete. Passenger vehicles are all about space utilization. Safety standards affect that even more; front overhangs have no function other than crash safety, but the take space, making a vehicle longer without adding passenger or cargo volume.

I have already mentioned, that to get the most out of a given footprint, while not compromising handling -- and that is being RWD -- cars should have a FR-L layout with V4 and V6 (both 90° angle). But this just cannot happen anymore. The reason why cars with V6 have a long hood, is because they all have derivatives with I4 or V8 which are longer, thus V6s are usually inefficient in space utilization, there is empty space.

Platform layout and engine configuration are highly interrelated. First, the more parts different engine configurations can share, the cheaper to develop and produce. Thus I4 and I6. 60° V6 has always been a stand alone engine. 90° V6 can be derived from a 90° V8 as is mostly the case today with non-Japanese makers, but these are big engines for expensive cars, and as the I4 was already established a 90° V4 could not be cost efficient anymore, and many carmakers had no 90° V8 to derive it from.

Notice, that because of I4, and car makers have no incentives to make RWD cars. Because the 1 Series will have no more I6, it will be FWD. Same case with Volvo, even though it was FWD with I6 in transverse layout (Daewoo Magnus/Chevrolet Evanda is another notable exception).

I don't want to tell to go buy the FF-L Audi A4 that you praise so much, but be prepared that what is praise about the 3 German is (unfortunately) not the reason why consumers buy them. They buy them primarily because of the badge, secondarily, because they 'feel' better, third because of market value, related to desirability due to the two first points. If the ES can give consumers a better 'feel' and consumers are aware of it through good sales promotion, it will be a success, regardless of what journalist praise about the Germans: handling and infotainment (iDrive, MMI, MBUX).

There is a big discrepancy between Journalists and Consumers. Consumers need Journalists to help with their buying decision, but Journalists cater to Enthusiasts, that only want Journalists to confirm their personal preferences. That is a big problem for the Consumer, and ultimately for the general Carmaker.

L