Lexus August 2018 Sales Report

Posted by Kevin on September 4th, 2018

USA

Lexus USA has reported 28,622 total sales for August 2018, a 7.1% decrease over last year — here’s the model-by-model breakdown:

MONTH Year to Date (*DSR)
2018 2017 % CHG* 2018 2017 % CHG*
CT 0 204 -100 4 4,572 -99.9
IS 2,231 2,445 -8.8 15,595 17,216 -9.9
RC 327 665 -50.8 2,335 4,286 -45.8
ES 4,686 6,404 -26.8 29,138 34,845 -16.8
GS 549 689 -20.3 4,707 4,894 -4.3
LS 923 413 123.5 6,004 2,670 123.8
LC 210 291 -28 1,392 1449 -4
LFA 0 0 0 2 1 99
Total Cars 8,926 11,111 -19.7 59,177 69,933 -15.8
NX 5,644 5,517 2.3 38,969 36,946 5.0
RX 10,875 10,391 4.7 70,706 66,760 5.4
GX 2,773 3336 -16.9 16,817 16,308 2.6
LX 404 446 -9.4 3,356 3,516 -5.0
Total Trucks 19,696 19,690 0.0 129,848 123,530 4.6
Total Sales 28,622 30,801 -7.1 189,025 193,463 -2.8

Please note, all percentages are calculated by the Daily Sales Rate (DSR), which takes into account the number of days in the month that dealerships could sell cars. August 2018 had 27 selling days, August 2017 had 27 selling days.

Sales ReportsUSA
Popular Stories

Sorry. No data so far.

Comments
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
The Tundra dropped the 1GR V6 base engine several years ago. Also, has the GX ever featured a V6 engine in NA? I'm not against a new, spiffier, more efficient engine, but I do question the logic of including these 2 vehicles in this list.
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
The Tundra dropped the 1GR V6 base engine several years ago. Also, has the GX ever featured a V6 engine in NA? I'm not against a new, spiffier, more efficient engine, but I do question the logic of including these 2 vehicles in this list.
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
S
carguy420
Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.
From my own experience the answer is exactly 'all over the place'.

I'm currently on a 7000km road trip driving a Volvo XC60. Over 2 tons fully loaded and a 248hp 2.0T. This downsized motor is brutally efficient on highway where I average 5.5L/100km cruising at 100kph. On the other hand in city where there's a ton of acceleration and deceleration it averages over 15L/100km (I turn off start-stop because it's a PITA)

My ES350 averaged 8L/100km but in city it's much less punished at 11L/100km.

So the point is, downsized motors are incredibly efficient during steady-state operation, but get punished heavily when there's a lot of uneven work load. That's why they get an unfair advantage in NEDC or JC08 testing, where the work load is very uniform, unlike the highly erratic EPA cycle.

In the end it depends on your driving style. A hypermiler will get more from a downsized engine but for enthusiasts with lead feet there's very limited gains. For trucks turbocharged is always better, but only when it can be as durable as a large understressed NA engine (which is the question mark with turbos on trucks).
S
carguy420
Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.
From my own experience the answer is exactly 'all over the place'.

I'm currently on a 7000km road trip driving a Volvo XC60. Over 2 tons fully loaded and a 248hp 2.0T. This downsized motor is brutally efficient on highway where I average 5.5L/100km cruising at 100kph. On the other hand in city where there's a ton of acceleration and deceleration it averages over 15L/100km (I turn off start-stop because it's a PITA)

My ES350 averaged 8L/100km but in city it's much less punished at 11L/100km.

So the point is, downsized motors are incredibly efficient during steady-state operation, but get punished heavily when there's a lot of uneven work load. That's why they get an unfair advantage in NEDC or JC08 testing, where the work load is very uniform, unlike the highly erratic EPA cycle.

In the end it depends on your driving style. A hypermiler will get more from a downsized engine but for enthusiasts with lead feet there's very limited gains. For trucks turbocharged is always better, but only when it can be as durable as a large understressed NA engine (which is the question mark with turbos on trucks).
S
carguy420
Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.
From my own experience the answer is exactly 'all over the place'.

I'm currently on a 7000km road trip driving a Volvo XC60. Over 2 tons fully loaded and a 248hp 2.0T. This downsized motor is brutally efficient on highway where I average 5.5L/100km cruising at 100kph. On the other hand in city where there's a ton of acceleration and deceleration it averages over 15L/100km (I turn off start-stop because it's a PITA)

My ES350 averaged 8L/100km but in city it's much less punished at 11L/100km.

So the point is, downsized motors are incredibly efficient during steady-state operation, but get punished heavily when there's a lot of uneven work load. That's why they get an unfair advantage in NEDC or JC08 testing, where the work load is very uniform, unlike the highly erratic EPA cycle.

In the end it depends on your driving style. A hypermiler will get more from a downsized engine but for enthusiasts with lead feet there's very limited gains. For trucks turbocharged is always better, but only when it can be as durable as a large understressed NA engine (which is the question mark with turbos on trucks).
S
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.
S
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.
S
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.
T
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
T
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
T
Gecko
V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
T
Gecko
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
T
Gecko
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
T
Gecko
Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
Globally, yes. But not in USA. 4Runner has a 5AT:eek:
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
Globally, yes. But not in USA. 4Runner has a 5AT:eek:
Gecko
TheNerdyPotato
I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.
Globally, yes. But not in USA. 4Runner has a 5AT:eek:
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. At the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. At the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. At the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
Gecko
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. A the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
One con to being late to forced induction: Everyone else is already 3-4 generations ahead while Lexus is just rolling into it's second generation. I had really high hopes for the V35A-FTS but as you note, it is merely adequate in the real world and feels/behaves much like a V6. It's no V8 replacement.

I think Lexus' best chance to break through is going to be combining turbocharging and hybrids, like V35A-FTS + Multi-Stage Hybrid system. This eliminates turbo lag and provides more smoothness in day-to-day operation. They could do it - but at what cost?
Gecko
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. A the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
One con to being late to forced induction: Everyone else is already 3-4 generations ahead while Lexus is just rolling into it's second generation. I had really high hopes for the V35A-FTS but as you note, it is merely adequate in the real world and feels/behaves much like a V6. It's no V8 replacement.

I think Lexus' best chance to break through is going to be combining turbocharging and hybrids, like V35A-FTS + Multi-Stage Hybrid system. This eliminates turbo lag and provides more smoothness in day-to-day operation. They could do it - but at what cost?
Gecko
mikeavelli
My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. A the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...
One con to being late to forced induction: Everyone else is already 3-4 generations ahead while Lexus is just rolling into it's second generation. I had really high hopes for the V35A-FTS but as you note, it is merely adequate in the real world and feels/behaves much like a V6. It's no V8 replacement.

I think Lexus' best chance to break through is going to be combining turbocharging and hybrids, like V35A-FTS + Multi-Stage Hybrid system. This eliminates turbo lag and provides more smoothness in day-to-day operation. They could do it - but at what cost?
S
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
As you've said the lack of torque can be compensated by proper gearing. Not somewhat, but almost completely. Engine torque does not matter in acceleration and towing, the torque curve matters.

Sadly it is something Toyota just doesn't do. Their transmissions almost always have questionable gearing.
S
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
As you've said the lack of torque can be compensated by proper gearing. Not somewhat, but almost completely. Engine torque does not matter in acceleration and towing, the torque curve matters.

Sadly it is something Toyota just doesn't do. Their transmissions almost always have questionable gearing.
S
TheNerdyPotato
I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.
As you've said the lack of torque can be compensated by proper gearing. Not somewhat, but almost completely. Engine torque does not matter in acceleration and towing, the torque curve matters.

Sadly it is something Toyota just doesn't do. Their transmissions almost always have questionable gearing.
S
ssun30
A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.
i dont think it will be detuned... whole point of new powertrains is less variations for improved production/R&D efficiency that make more expensive engines go into cheaper cars. This is why new LC300 info points out that it will have 422hp V35A-FTS.

Or why there is no place for detuned V35A-FTS on the new powertrain chart from TMC.

What is there not to like?

S