Video: Matt Farah Reviews the 2019 Lexus ES 350 F SPORT

Posted by Kevin on September 21st, 2018

Matt Farah from The Smoking Tire has fallen hard for the 2019 Lexus ES 350 F SPORT, calling it “the most comfortable, refined modern car I’ve driven”:

Lexus ES: Sixth Generation
Popular Stories

Sorry. No data so far.

Comments
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
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.
Trexus
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?
Exactly! Lexus in their own words has stated that the ES competes directly with the A4, 3 Series and C Class but as we all know the ES is really in a class of it own. The IS line is really the true competitor to the A4, 3 Series and C Class.

Please watch this video from Lexus when they were in Nashville, TN, USA and Lexus shows a diagram at the 3:34 mark showing the ES competing with A4, 3 Series, C Class and TLX. So no the ES has never, currently or will ever compete with the A6, 5 Series or E Class...

Trexus
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?
Exactly! Lexus in their own words has stated that the ES competes directly with the A4, 3 Series and C Class but as we all know the ES is really in a class of it own. The IS line is really the true competitor to the A4, 3 Series and C Class.

Please watch this video from Lexus when they were in Nashville, TN, USA and Lexus shows a diagram at the 3:34 mark showing the ES competing with A4, 3 Series, C Class and TLX. So no the ES has never, currently or will ever compete with the A6, 5 Series or E Class...

Trexus
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?
Exactly! Lexus in their own words has stated that the ES competes directly with the A4, 3 Series and C Class but as we all know the ES is really in a class of it own. The IS line is really the true competitor to the A4, 3 Series and C Class.

Please watch this video from Lexus when they were in Nashville, TN, USA and Lexus shows a diagram at the 3:34 mark showing the ES competing with A4, 3 Series, C Class and TLX. So no the ES has never, currently or will ever compete with the A6, 5 Series or E Class...

Trexus
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?
Exactly! Lexus in their own words has stated that the ES competes directly with the A4, 3 Series and C Class but as we all know the ES is really in a class of it own. The IS line is really the true competitor to the A4, 3 Series and C Class.

Please watch this video from Lexus when they were in Nashville, TN, USA and Lexus shows a diagram at the 3:34 mark showing the ES competing with A4, 3 Series, C Class and TLX. So no the ES has never, currently or will ever compete with the A6, 5 Series or E Class...

peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.

Keep in mind that E Class & 5 Series are breathing on ES's back with peak annual sales of 69k & 57k respectively.
Thus, to get more midsize luxury sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.

Keep in mind that E Class & 5 Series are breathing on ES's back with peak annual sales of 69k & 57k respectively.
Thus, to get more midsize luxury sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.

Keep in mind that E Class & 5 Series are breathing on ES's back with peak annual sales of 69k & 57k respectively.
Thus, to get more midsize luxury sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.

Keep in mind that E Class & 5 Series are breathing on ES's back with peak annual sales of 69k & 57k respectively.
Thus, to get more midsize luxury sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
L
peterharvey
True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
L
peterharvey
True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
L
peterharvey
True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
L
peterharvey
True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
S
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.
To get more sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
Great post! I fully agree.

Enthusiasts do make up a low number of buyers and the average consumer is the main target. This is why I believe the Lexus ES got a lot of attention. The Lexus ES is Toyota's cash cow main demographic seller, much like their Camry, Avalon, RAV4, RX, and NX type vehicles. I predict their UX will be an insane seller too.

TMC can definitely keep the 5GS around. BMW keeps some cars around that sell less than 2-3K units per year. This is what makes lots of car enthusiasts like BMW. They sell stuff for the masses and for the little. I believe Toyota needs to do this. In my opinion, if Lexus wants to retain their Lexus IS consumer base, a GS is a must. The Lexus GS is seen as an upgrade to the Lexus IS because its a bigger car, better luxurious and with similar RWD handling dynamics. The Lexus ES just can't fill this void, not even with AWD, since it'll be a transverse AWD set up.

It wouldn't be an extension for the Lexus IS but it'll be an extension for the GS though. The 2G Lexus IS had 8 model years, so the 3G Lexus IS can definitely just follow what they did with the 2G Lexus IS.
If this happens, this gives room and time for Lexus to extend the GS timeline and maybe introduce a 3.5L V6 TT onto the GS for MY2021. And then the IS will be MY2022 (which will the 3G Lexus IS an 8 year cycle from 14-21).

Levi
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
S
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.
To get more sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
Great post! I fully agree.

Enthusiasts do make up a low number of buyers and the average consumer is the main target. This is why I believe the Lexus ES got a lot of attention. The Lexus ES is Toyota's cash cow main demographic seller, much like their Camry, Avalon, RAV4, RX, and NX type vehicles. I predict their UX will be an insane seller too.

TMC can definitely keep the 5GS around. BMW keeps some cars around that sell less than 2-3K units per year. This is what makes lots of car enthusiasts like BMW. They sell stuff for the masses and for the little. I believe Toyota needs to do this. In my opinion, if Lexus wants to retain their Lexus IS consumer base, a GS is a must. The Lexus GS is seen as an upgrade to the Lexus IS because its a bigger car, better luxurious and with similar RWD handling dynamics. The Lexus ES just can't fill this void, not even with AWD, since it'll be a transverse AWD set up.

It wouldn't be an extension for the Lexus IS but it'll be an extension for the GS though. The 2G Lexus IS had 8 model years, so the 3G Lexus IS can definitely just follow what they did with the 2G Lexus IS.
If this happens, this gives room and time for Lexus to extend the GS timeline and maybe introduce a 3.5L V6 TT onto the GS for MY2021. And then the IS will be MY2022 (which will the 3G Lexus IS an 8 year cycle from 14-21).

Levi
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
S
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.
To get more sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
Great post! I fully agree.

Enthusiasts do make up a low number of buyers and the average consumer is the main target. This is why I believe the Lexus ES got a lot of attention. The Lexus ES is Toyota's cash cow main demographic seller, much like their Camry, Avalon, RAV4, RX, and NX type vehicles. I predict their UX will be an insane seller too.

TMC can definitely keep the 5GS around. BMW keeps some cars around that sell less than 2-3K units per year. This is what makes lots of car enthusiasts like BMW. They sell stuff for the masses and for the little. I believe Toyota needs to do this. In my opinion, if Lexus wants to retain their Lexus IS consumer base, a GS is a must. The Lexus GS is seen as an upgrade to the Lexus IS because its a bigger car, better luxurious and with similar RWD handling dynamics. The Lexus ES just can't fill this void, not even with AWD, since it'll be a transverse AWD set up.

It wouldn't be an extension for the Lexus IS but it'll be an extension for the GS though. The 2G Lexus IS had 8 model years, so the 3G Lexus IS can definitely just follow what they did with the 2G Lexus IS.
If this happens, this gives room and time for Lexus to extend the GS timeline and maybe introduce a 3.5L V6 TT onto the GS for MY2021. And then the IS will be MY2022 (which will the 3G Lexus IS an 8 year cycle from 14-21).

Levi
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
S
peterharvey
Audi's longitudinal FWD with the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox behind the front axle is good, while RWD is even better for the enthusiast.
However, enthusiasts make up only a very small number of buyers.

True, that the Germans are mainly purchased for their badge and styling, rather than their RWD and front double wishbone suspension to maximise grip.

ES is not a driver's car with FWD, nor cheap single lower link MacPherson strut front suspension, but ES is probably more attractive than ever, and so spacious - hence it successfully sells to the mums & dads in the mass public - without Toyota Motor Corporation having to go to the expense of RWD with front double wishbone suspension.

ES has the weight of the flywheel, torque converter and gearbox - all in front of the front axle.
RX has a FWD-based AWD/4WD system where the rear wheels are passively activated only when the front wheels slip.
For ES transverse engine to have a Full Time FT AWD/4WD system like the Germans requires a complicated set up, where the transverse gearbox drives the center differential.

I have a feeling that the ES will only reach a certain limit in sales.
Eg, at their best, they sold about 80k units/year USA.
To get more sales, Lexus will still need RWD with double wishbone front suspension.

It would be great if TMC can keep going with 5GS as a halo model for enthusiasts like Sakura.
Normally, if the Crown is there, then there is always potentially a 5GS, because such reskinning with sportier suspension wouldn't take much time, nor cost much.
I notice that the new Crown does not have 3.5L V6 TT.
Just as the last LS had an extended 11 year model cycle, I suspect current GS & IS may have its life cycle extended to 8 years.
It doesn't seem that 5GS is ready for release in 2019, but maybe 2020 5GS and 2021 release of 4IS - then a 3.5L V6 TT will be ready and more refined too.
Great post! I fully agree.

Enthusiasts do make up a low number of buyers and the average consumer is the main target. This is why I believe the Lexus ES got a lot of attention. The Lexus ES is Toyota's cash cow main demographic seller, much like their Camry, Avalon, RAV4, RX, and NX type vehicles. I predict their UX will be an insane seller too.

TMC can definitely keep the 5GS around. BMW keeps some cars around that sell less than 2-3K units per year. This is what makes lots of car enthusiasts like BMW. They sell stuff for the masses and for the little. I believe Toyota needs to do this. In my opinion, if Lexus wants to retain their Lexus IS consumer base, a GS is a must. The Lexus GS is seen as an upgrade to the Lexus IS because its a bigger car, better luxurious and with similar RWD handling dynamics. The Lexus ES just can't fill this void, not even with AWD, since it'll be a transverse AWD set up.

It wouldn't be an extension for the Lexus IS but it'll be an extension for the GS though. The 2G Lexus IS had 8 model years, so the 3G Lexus IS can definitely just follow what they did with the 2G Lexus IS.
If this happens, this gives room and time for Lexus to extend the GS timeline and maybe introduce a 3.5L V6 TT onto the GS for MY2021. And then the IS will be MY2022 (which will the 3G Lexus IS an 8 year cycle from 14-21).

Levi
Not really true. M3/M4 has MacPherson strut. And many 'cheap' Japanese had double wishbone all round, even for FWD cars.
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
L
Sakura
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
I have driven the A6 3.0 TDI. Had Quattro, double wishbone suspension. I have never driven a worse executive sedan (for the price). Harsh ride, week handling. Overpriced rubbish. I am not aware the the ES will compete against M3s and 911s.


By the way, the Acura Vigor that competed against the Lexus ES (XV10) had FMF-L layout, better than Audi's FF-L layout, and double wishbone front suspension, it was very sporty. Look where it is today, and where the ES is!
L
Sakura
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
I have driven the A6 3.0 TDI. Had Quattro, double wishbone suspension. I have never driven a worse executive sedan (for the price). Harsh ride, week handling. Overpriced rubbish. I am not aware the the ES will compete against M3s and 911s.


By the way, the Acura Vigor that competed against the Lexus ES (XV10) had FMF-L layout, better than Audi's FF-L layout, and double wishbone front suspension, it was very sporty. Look where it is today, and where the ES is!
L
Sakura
The difference between Porsche and BMW M cars having the Macpherson strut is the Germans are using it to cut cost without any of the negative draw backs of it. Porsche and BMW reworks everything to make sure their cars handle great without feeling the draw-backs of Macpherson struts.
The Lexus ES, Avalon and Camry does not have this rework. Nor it should because its not a track/sporty car.
I have driven the A6 3.0 TDI. Had Quattro, double wishbone suspension. I have never driven a worse executive sedan (for the price). Harsh ride, week handling. Overpriced rubbish. I am not aware the the ES will compete against M3s and 911s.


By the way, the Acura Vigor that competed against the Lexus ES (XV10) had FMF-L layout, better than Audi's FF-L layout, and double wishbone front suspension, it was very sporty. Look where it is today, and where the ES is!

L