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
F1 Silver Arrows
MOBLIN
Hey guys, I just found this forum through a Google search. Very interesting stuff! I will participate as much as I can, but will most likely be more of a spectator as you guys are much better informed than I am.

Question: What are the chances that the Tundra, Sequoia and Land Cruiser get an updated 5.7L V8? I mean, Toyota has spent considerable time establishing the iForce name for the Tundra, and that same engine has quite a few applications. Mike Sweers is a self admitted "big V8 guy" and has been pretty vocal about how great he thinks the 5.7L is. There are two V8 slots in the diagram, could either of those be an updated 5.7L that incorporates Dynamic Force and D-4S technology?

Thanks!
Welcome @MOBLIN to Lexus Enthusiast! You actually brought up a great point. One of the new engines could possibly be a revised 5.7 L or anything of the sort. That could be the workhorse engine we may all need.
F1 Silver Arrows
MOBLIN
Hey guys, I just found this forum through a Google search. Very interesting stuff! I will participate as much as I can, but will most likely be more of a spectator as you guys are much better informed than I am.

Question: What are the chances that the Tundra, Sequoia and Land Cruiser get an updated 5.7L V8? I mean, Toyota has spent considerable time establishing the iForce name for the Tundra, and that same engine has quite a few applications. Mike Sweers is a self admitted "big V8 guy" and has been pretty vocal about how great he thinks the 5.7L is. There are two V8 slots in the diagram, could either of those be an updated 5.7L that incorporates Dynamic Force and D-4S technology?

Thanks!
Welcome @MOBLIN to Lexus Enthusiast! You actually brought up a great point. One of the new engines could possibly be a revised 5.7 L or anything of the sort. That could be the workhorse engine we may all need.
T
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
T
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
T
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
M
ssun30
Seeing how Ford keeps an updated V8 for the F-150 I'd say an updated UR for trucks is a possibility.
Not just Ford, but GM with the revised 5.3L and 6.2L, Ram with the revised 5.7L and Nissan with the revised 5.6L Endurance. All of the manufacturers have, so far, released updated versions of their engines from the last generation. I would love to see Toyota do the same with the 5.7L.
M
ssun30
Seeing how Ford keeps an updated V8 for the F-150 I'd say an updated UR for trucks is a possibility.
Not just Ford, but GM with the revised 5.3L and 6.2L, Ram with the revised 5.7L and Nissan with the revised 5.6L Endurance. All of the manufacturers have, so far, released updated versions of their engines from the last generation. I would love to see Toyota do the same with the 5.7L.
M
ssun30
Seeing how Ford keeps an updated V8 for the F-150 I'd say an updated UR for trucks is a possibility.
Not just Ford, but GM with the revised 5.3L and 6.2L, Ram with the revised 5.7L and Nissan with the revised 5.6L Endurance. All of the manufacturers have, so far, released updated versions of their engines from the last generation. I would love to see Toyota do the same with the 5.7L.
M
TheNerdyPotato
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without direct injection! Fingers crossed that they give us something good.
M
TheNerdyPotato
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without direct injection! Fingers crossed that they give us something good.
M
TheNerdyPotato
Tundras need a lot of help in the gas-mileage department. Those UR engines are hogs. Granted, so was the 2UZ, but expectations are much higher now.
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without direct injection! Fingers crossed that they give us something good.
T
MOBLIN
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without fuel injection! Fingers crossed that they give is something good
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
T
MOBLIN
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without fuel injection! Fingers crossed that they give is something good
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
T
MOBLIN
It's funny, people complain about the mpg of the 3UR-FE, but it is actually pretty competitive since the 2014 refresh, and that is without fuel injection! Fingers crossed that they give is something good
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
M
TheNerdyPotato
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
M
TheNerdyPotato
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
M
TheNerdyPotato
My understanding is that the newer Tundras are among the very worst of modern full-size pickups in terms of fuel efficiency. The 1UR supposedly gets maybe 1mpg better with drastically reduced performance. Heck, even the Ram is getting better records on Fuelly. Now, I'm not expecting a huge pickup to get Prius-like numbers, or even Camry V6-like, but I gotta say it does need some help.

An update to the 3UR, similar to what the 2GR got recently, could be exactly what it needs. I've driven several Tundras and don't think they need more power. They just need to guzzle less gas. However, more power wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
Gecko
Look at the numbers on Fuelly... Tundra is the worst of the worst. 13-14 MPG avg vs. 15-17 MPG for competitors.
Gecko
Look at the numbers on Fuelly... Tundra is the worst of the worst. 13-14 MPG avg vs. 15-17 MPG for competitors.
Gecko
Look at the numbers on Fuelly... Tundra is the worst of the worst. 13-14 MPG avg vs. 15-17 MPG for competitors.
T
MOBLIN
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
Yes. Higher compression, direct injection, VVT-iW, and all the other goodies that help with efficiency. I think that would be the best short term solution, with a proper all-new replacement a few years later.
T
MOBLIN
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
Yes. Higher compression, direct injection, VVT-iW, and all the other goodies that help with efficiency. I think that would be the best short term solution, with a proper all-new replacement a few years later.
T
MOBLIN
In regard to the 2GR update, are you referring to the 2GR-FKS?
Yes. Higher compression, direct injection, VVT-iW, and all the other goodies that help with efficiency. I think that would be the best short term solution, with a proper all-new replacement a few years later.
C
ssun30
120hp(90kW)/L is a very Toyota-esque specific power target. For turbocharged engines, having a low downsizing factor is always beneficial for drivability, peak efficiency, and durability. Toyota picked a common 'middle ground' downsizing factor (1.5). It has nothing to do with their competence. Competitors aimed for 100-110kW(130-150hp)/L to have the downsized engine cover more applications. Toyota just doesn't want to go that far and compensate with raw displacement, hence the 3.5L and 2.5L.

Mazda had a even more modest target of 100hp/L with their turbocharged Skyactiv engine in order to keep the compression ratio high. That 2.5T is a very well reviewed engine compared to some questionable 2.0Ts from competitors.

Specific power is just a number and tells nothing about actual performance. There are too many 250hp 2.0Ts in the market. Some are excellent, some are abysmal. In my example, the 248hp Volvo T5 is absolutely dreadful: intolerable lag, non-existent torque below 2500rpm, and terrible NVH.
No wonder Volvo introduced "PowerPulse", basically blowing compressed air at the turbine wheel to spool up the turbo faster. Not sure how well it works though.
C
ssun30
120hp(90kW)/L is a very Toyota-esque specific power target. For turbocharged engines, having a low downsizing factor is always beneficial for drivability, peak efficiency, and durability. Toyota picked a common 'middle ground' downsizing factor (1.5). It has nothing to do with their competence. Competitors aimed for 100-110kW(130-150hp)/L to have the downsized engine cover more applications. Toyota just doesn't want to go that far and compensate with raw displacement, hence the 3.5L and 2.5L.

Mazda had a even more modest target of 100hp/L with their turbocharged Skyactiv engine in order to keep the compression ratio high. That 2.5T is a very well reviewed engine compared to some questionable 2.0Ts from competitors.

Specific power is just a number and tells nothing about actual performance. There are too many 250hp 2.0Ts in the market. Some are excellent, some are abysmal. In my example, the 248hp Volvo T5 is absolutely dreadful: intolerable lag, non-existent torque below 2500rpm, and terrible NVH.
No wonder Volvo introduced "PowerPulse", basically blowing compressed air at the turbine wheel to spool up the turbo faster. Not sure how well it works though.
C
ssun30
120hp(90kW)/L is a very Toyota-esque specific power target. For turbocharged engines, having a low downsizing factor is always beneficial for drivability, peak efficiency, and durability. Toyota picked a common 'middle ground' downsizing factor (1.5). It has nothing to do with their competence. Competitors aimed for 100-110kW(130-150hp)/L to have the downsized engine cover more applications. Toyota just doesn't want to go that far and compensate with raw displacement, hence the 3.5L and 2.5L.

Mazda had a even more modest target of 100hp/L with their turbocharged Skyactiv engine in order to keep the compression ratio high. That 2.5T is a very well reviewed engine compared to some questionable 2.0Ts from competitors.

Specific power is just a number and tells nothing about actual performance. There are too many 250hp 2.0Ts in the market. Some are excellent, some are abysmal. In my example, the 248hp Volvo T5 is absolutely dreadful: intolerable lag, non-existent torque below 2500rpm, and terrible NVH.
No wonder Volvo introduced "PowerPulse", basically blowing compressed air at the turbine wheel to spool up the turbo faster. Not sure how well it works though.
S
How much maintenance does the FKS package add compared to the FE?
S
How much maintenance does the FKS package add compared to the FE?
S
How much maintenance does the FKS package add compared to the FE?
T
ssun30
How much maintenance does the FKS package add compared to the FE?
The FKS package is basically an updated version of the previous FSE, right? They already have dual VVT-i, so VVT-iW isn't much of a stretch. The only major mechanical addition over the FE engines (that I can think of) is the direct injection. When the 2GR-FKS first came out, I read that the ECU will periodically and automatically put the direct injectors through a self-cleaning cycle. That basically leaves the high pressure DI pump, which I haven't heard of many Lexus models having that fail. If/when it does, I'm sure it does cost a pretty penny.

T