Rendered: The Next-Generation Lexus IS Sedan

ssun30

The Dynamic Force is a less power dense design than the GR/UR. It loses quite a bit of peak torque (100N.m/L) compared to the older GSE (close to 110N.m/L). However the usable torque should be comparable in real world usage. Still the DF motors will struggle against turbocharged competition for hauling and towing.

Turbocharging just makes sense for utility vehicles. We shouldn't be surprised that every heavy duty combat vehicle out there has a turbodiesel. And modern turbo gasolines are basically turbodiesels that rev higher and burn cleaner.



Whether the US market definitively want a naturally aspirated V6 is somewhat debatable. After all, the best sellers in the segment are all equipped with forced-induction. I don't see 3-series buyers complaining the N55 and B58 are not naturally aspirated.

The problem is, again, what new capabilities can a hypothetical V35A-FKS bring? If, as many on this forum suggest, the current IS350 lacks power compared to the competition (which is true), will the V35A-FKS solve this problem at all? The 2IS introduced the 2GR-FSE which is a huge upgrade in capabilities vs. the old 2JZ-GE on the 1IS/Altezza. It was almost a 50% power increase, along with more compact packaging, lower weight, and much improved efficiency.

The 2GR-FKS engine already has over 90hp/L at 6800rpm with a 83mm stroke running 95RON. The A25A-FKS makes 82hp/L at 6600rpm running 91RON. To even achieve the same specific power as the 2GR-FKS they will have to find 10% extra power. Getting 10% extra power is not easy without raising the rpm of the engine, at best they could get close to 90hp/L with 95RON, richer fuel mixture, and more aggressive cams, sacrificing efficiency during the process. The thing is, at 100mm stroke, they really couldn't get much more revs out of the V35A. The ND Miata recently got an upgrade to 90hp/L, but its 2.0 SkyActiv-G had more revs margin to play with.

So the point is, they already need to go through a lot of trouble to match the power of the 2GR-FKS, which is already considered underpowered.

Of course I would love to see a dedicated high specific power 3.5L unit with 100hp/L and thermal efficiency that is relevant in the modern world. But TMC is a very logic-driven corporation, so it tends to not do things that sound cool but don't work well.

Much of this post is incorrect and I strongly disagree. I'm curious where you're getting your figures from because it's as if you're pulling them out of thin air. There is no Dynamic Force V8 released yet. The only Dynamic Force V6 released is the V35A-FTS, which is a twin-turbo V6 model. It is much, much more power dense than any GR V6. This is partially because of the twin turbos, but not entirely of course. The V35-FTS achieves 416HP at 6000 RPM on premium fuel, which is not particularly high-revving compared to the GR series engines. That's a power density of about 119 HP/L (achieved at lower revs than the 2GR-FKS) not to mention much, MUCH more torque density than any GR engine, that there's no point even listing the numbers because the torque difference is so obviously massive. It Beyond this, there is absolutely zero public evidence available on what the hypothetical power density would be/could be on a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A.

The A25A Dynamic Force engine is more power-dense than its previous generation predecessor. Comparing the A25A to the V35A or GR series is meaningless at this point. If you insist though, lets have the numbers do the talking. In the most basic configuration on the Camry, the A25A-FKS achieves 203HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, which is a power density of about 81 HP/L. Also in the Camry, the 2GR-FKS achieves 301HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, for a power density of 86 HP/L. So like for like, apples to apples, that's not much of a power density difference. Again, this is a meaningless comparison, because you are comparing a mainstream, low cost inline 4 engine of a new generation versus a more higher end, higher cost V6 design of an older generation. So two different engine architectures from two different generations you're comparing here. If and/or when a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A appears, it's very likely that it won't be using the exact same technologies as the A25A. Other differences include the fact that the A25A-FKS achieves much better emissions than the 2GR-FKS, as well as much better emissions than the previous generation AR predecessor. Also there is the other obvious point that the A25-FKS achieves dramatically better fuel economy than the 2GR-FKS.

So in fact, the A25A-FKS almost matches the 2GR-FKS power density when comparing like for like (both engines on the Camry, comparing both on regular fuel). It does so while being a different engine architecture, achieving dramatically better fuel economy, much better emissions, and while being a lower cost, more basic engine design compared to the 2GR-FKS. It also does so in spite of the fact that the A25A-FKS was not even designed for peak power density whatsoever. So it does so without even trying.

Let me repeat though, an overall meaningless comparison. The only meaningful comparison will come if and/or when we get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR series. If we don't get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR, then the V35A-FTS is automatically the clear winner over the GR series in regards to power density.

ssun30

The Dynamic Force is a less power dense design than the GR/UR. It loses quite a bit of peak torque (100N.m/L) compared to the older GSE (close to 110N.m/L). However the usable torque should be comparable in real world usage. Still the DF motors will struggle against turbocharged competition for hauling and towing.

Turbocharging just makes sense for utility vehicles. We shouldn't be surprised that every heavy duty combat vehicle out there has a turbodiesel. And modern turbo gasolines are basically turbodiesels that rev higher and burn cleaner.



Whether the US market definitively want a naturally aspirated V6 is somewhat debatable. After all, the best sellers in the segment are all equipped with forced-induction. I don't see 3-series buyers complaining the N55 and B58 are not naturally aspirated.

The problem is, again, what new capabilities can a hypothetical V35A-FKS bring? If, as many on this forum suggest, the current IS350 lacks power compared to the competition (which is true), will the V35A-FKS solve this problem at all? The 2IS introduced the 2GR-FSE which is a huge upgrade in capabilities vs. the old 2JZ-GE on the 1IS/Altezza. It was almost a 50% power increase, along with more compact packaging, lower weight, and much improved efficiency.

The 2GR-FKS engine already has over 90hp/L at 6800rpm with a 83mm stroke running 95RON. The A25A-FKS makes 82hp/L at 6600rpm running 91RON. To even achieve the same specific power as the 2GR-FKS they will have to find 10% extra power. Getting 10% extra power is not easy without raising the rpm of the engine, at best they could get close to 90hp/L with 95RON, richer fuel mixture, and more aggressive cams, sacrificing efficiency during the process. The thing is, at 100mm stroke, they really couldn't get much more revs out of the V35A. The ND Miata recently got an upgrade to 90hp/L, but its 2.0 SkyActiv-G had more revs margin to play with.

So the point is, they already need to go through a lot of trouble to match the power of the 2GR-FKS, which is already considered underpowered.

Of course I would love to see a dedicated high specific power 3.5L unit with 100hp/L and thermal efficiency that is relevant in the modern world. But TMC is a very logic-driven corporation, so it tends to not do things that sound cool but don't work well.

Much of this post is incorrect and I strongly disagree. I'm curious where you're getting your figures from because it's as if you're pulling them out of thin air. There is no Dynamic Force V8 released yet. The only Dynamic Force V6 released is the V35A-FTS, which is a twin-turbo V6 model. It is much, much more power dense than any GR V6. This is partially because of the twin turbos, but not entirely of course. The V35-FTS achieves 416HP at 6000 RPM on premium fuel, which is not particularly high-revving compared to the GR series engines. That's a power density of about 119 HP/L (achieved at lower revs than the 2GR-FKS) not to mention much, MUCH more torque density than any GR engine, that there's no point even listing the numbers because the torque difference is so obviously massive. It Beyond this, there is absolutely zero public evidence available on what the hypothetical power density would be/could be on a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A.

The A25A Dynamic Force engine is more power-dense than its previous generation predecessor. Comparing the A25A to the V35A or GR series is meaningless at this point. If you insist though, lets have the numbers do the talking. In the most basic configuration on the Camry, the A25A-FKS achieves 203HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, which is a power density of about 81 HP/L. Also in the Camry, the 2GR-FKS achieves 301HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, for a power density of 86 HP/L. So like for like, apples to apples, that's not much of a power density difference. Again, this is a meaningless comparison, because you are comparing a mainstream, low cost inline 4 engine of a new generation versus a more higher end, higher cost V6 design of an older generation. So two different engine architectures from two different generations you're comparing here. If and/or when a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A appears, it's very likely that it won't be using the exact same technologies as the A25A. Other differences include the fact that the A25A-FKS achieves much better emissions than the 2GR-FKS, as well as much better emissions than the previous generation AR predecessor. Also there is the other obvious point that the A25-FKS achieves dramatically better fuel economy than the 2GR-FKS.

So in fact, the A25A-FKS almost matches the 2GR-FKS power density when comparing like for like (both engines on the Camry, comparing both on regular fuel). It does so while being a different engine architecture, achieving dramatically better fuel economy, much better emissions, and while being a lower cost, more basic engine design compared to the 2GR-FKS. It also does so in spite of the fact that the A25A-FKS was not even designed for peak power density whatsoever. So it does so without even trying.

Let me repeat though, an overall meaningless comparison. The only meaningful comparison will come if and/or when we get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR series. If we don't get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR, then the V35A-FTS is automatically the clear winner over the GR series in regards to power density.

ssun30

The Dynamic Force is a less power dense design than the GR/UR. It loses quite a bit of peak torque (100N.m/L) compared to the older GSE (close to 110N.m/L). However the usable torque should be comparable in real world usage. Still the DF motors will struggle against turbocharged competition for hauling and towing.

Turbocharging just makes sense for utility vehicles. We shouldn't be surprised that every heavy duty combat vehicle out there has a turbodiesel. And modern turbo gasolines are basically turbodiesels that rev higher and burn cleaner.



Whether the US market definitively want a naturally aspirated V6 is somewhat debatable. After all, the best sellers in the segment are all equipped with forced-induction. I don't see 3-series buyers complaining the N55 and B58 are not naturally aspirated.

The problem is, again, what new capabilities can a hypothetical V35A-FKS bring? If, as many on this forum suggest, the current IS350 lacks power compared to the competition (which is true), will the V35A-FKS solve this problem at all? The 2IS introduced the 2GR-FSE which is a huge upgrade in capabilities vs. the old 2JZ-GE on the 1IS/Altezza. It was almost a 50% power increase, along with more compact packaging, lower weight, and much improved efficiency.

The 2GR-FKS engine already has over 90hp/L at 6800rpm with a 83mm stroke running 95RON. The A25A-FKS makes 82hp/L at 6600rpm running 91RON. To even achieve the same specific power as the 2GR-FKS they will have to find 10% extra power. Getting 10% extra power is not easy without raising the rpm of the engine, at best they could get close to 90hp/L with 95RON, richer fuel mixture, and more aggressive cams, sacrificing efficiency during the process. The thing is, at 100mm stroke, they really couldn't get much more revs out of the V35A. The ND Miata recently got an upgrade to 90hp/L, but its 2.0 SkyActiv-G had more revs margin to play with.

So the point is, they already need to go through a lot of trouble to match the power of the 2GR-FKS, which is already considered underpowered.

Of course I would love to see a dedicated high specific power 3.5L unit with 100hp/L and thermal efficiency that is relevant in the modern world. But TMC is a very logic-driven corporation, so it tends to not do things that sound cool but don't work well.

Much of this post is incorrect and I strongly disagree. I'm curious where you're getting your figures from because it's as if you're pulling them out of thin air. There is no Dynamic Force V8 released yet. The only Dynamic Force V6 released is the V35A-FTS, which is a twin-turbo V6 model. It is much, much more power dense than any GR V6. This is partially because of the twin turbos, but not entirely of course. The V35-FTS achieves 416HP at 6000 RPM on premium fuel, which is not particularly high-revving compared to the GR series engines. That's a power density of about 119 HP/L (achieved at lower revs than the 2GR-FKS) not to mention much, MUCH more torque density than any GR engine, that there's no point even listing the numbers because the torque difference is so obviously massive. It Beyond this, there is absolutely zero public evidence available on what the hypothetical power density would be/could be on a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A.

The A25A Dynamic Force engine is more power-dense than its previous generation predecessor. Comparing the A25A to the V35A or GR series is meaningless at this point. If you insist though, lets have the numbers do the talking. In the most basic configuration on the Camry, the A25A-FKS achieves 203HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, which is a power density of about 81 HP/L. Also in the Camry, the 2GR-FKS achieves 301HP at 6600 RPM on regular fuel, for a power density of 86 HP/L. So like for like, apples to apples, that's not much of a power density difference. Again, this is a meaningless comparison, because you are comparing a mainstream, low cost inline 4 engine of a new generation versus a more higher end, higher cost V6 design of an older generation. So two different engine architectures from two different generations you're comparing here. If and/or when a naturally aspirated variant of the V35A appears, it's very likely that it won't be using the exact same technologies as the A25A. Other differences include the fact that the A25A-FKS achieves much better emissions than the 2GR-FKS, as well as much better emissions than the previous generation AR predecessor. Also there is the other obvious point that the A25-FKS achieves dramatically better fuel economy than the 2GR-FKS.

So in fact, the A25A-FKS almost matches the 2GR-FKS power density when comparing like for like (both engines on the Camry, comparing both on regular fuel). It does so while being a different engine architecture, achieving dramatically better fuel economy, much better emissions, and while being a lower cost, more basic engine design compared to the 2GR-FKS. It also does so in spite of the fact that the A25A-FKS was not even designed for peak power density whatsoever. So it does so without even trying.

Let me repeat though, an overall meaningless comparison. The only meaningful comparison will come if and/or when we get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR series. If we don't get a naturally aspirated successor to the GR, then the V35A-FTS is automatically the clear winner over the GR series in regards to power density.

maiaramdan

@peterharvey
So you want to say that the 5GS will be like Tesla S competitor

Getting a bit off thread topic, but yes, just like the forthcoming Porsche Mission E which targets 0-63 mph is less than 3.5 seconds, I suspect the next gen GSe BEV would have similar targets.

I say "similar".
However, I don't believe they will be "identical".

I believe that the Tesla Model S [like the Genesis G80] - is some 1/2 size bigger than the likes of the E/5/A6/GS.
I also don't believe that such a GSe BEV would come with an aluminium space frame, nor will it do do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds unlike the Model S P90.
Such a GSe BEV would be far more affordable, far more practical with cup holders & sun visors etc, far more reliable, and would sell in much larger volumes.

maiaramdan

@peterharvey
So you want to say that the 5GS will be like Tesla S competitor

Getting a bit off thread topic, but yes, just like the forthcoming Porsche Mission E which targets 0-63 mph is less than 3.5 seconds, I suspect the next gen GSe BEV would have similar targets.

I say "similar".
However, I don't believe they will be "identical".

I believe that the Tesla Model S [like the Genesis G80] - is some 1/2 size bigger than the likes of the E/5/A6/GS.
I also don't believe that such a GSe BEV would come with an aluminium space frame, nor will it do do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds unlike the Model S P90.
Such a GSe BEV would be far more affordable, far more practical with cup holders & sun visors etc, far more reliable, and would sell in much larger volumes.

maiaramdan

@peterharvey
So you want to say that the 5GS will be like Tesla S competitor

Getting a bit off thread topic, but yes, just like the forthcoming Porsche Mission E which targets 0-63 mph is less than 3.5 seconds, I suspect the next gen GSe BEV would have similar targets.

I say "similar".
However, I don't believe they will be "identical".

I believe that the Tesla Model S [like the Genesis G80] - is some 1/2 size bigger than the likes of the E/5/A6/GS.
I also don't believe that such a GSe BEV would come with an aluminium space frame, nor will it do do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds unlike the Model S P90.
Such a GSe BEV would be far more affordable, far more practical with cup holders & sun visors etc, far more reliable, and would sell in much larger volumes.

maiaramdan

@peterharvey
So you want to say that the 5GS will be like Tesla S competitor

Getting a bit off thread topic, but yes, just like the forthcoming Porsche Mission E which targets 0-63 mph is less than 3.5 seconds, I suspect the next gen GSe BEV would have similar targets.

I say "similar".
However, I don't believe they will be "identical".

I believe that the Tesla Model S [like the Genesis G80] - is some 1/2 size bigger than the likes of the E/5/A6/GS.
I also don't believe that such a GSe BEV would come with an aluminium space frame, nor will it do do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds unlike the Model S P90.
Such a GSe BEV would be far more affordable, far more practical with cup holders & sun visors etc, far more reliable, and would sell in much larger volumes.

Rhambler

I seriously doubt the next IS will have any pure electrification considering Toyota’s glacial pace to adopt anything outside of their comfort zone.

With the 5LS already released, a 5GS rumoured to be axed globally, and rumours of impending 4IS release, I agree with you - there will no IS BEV too soon.
Apart from the next gen CT being the first Lexus BEV, I suspect that of the IS/GS/LS - the midsize GS will be their first BEV.
Because if a customer wants a midsize luxury ICEV, Lexus will simply point to the 7th gen ES.
That leaves room for the GSe to be Lexus' first premium BEV.
All this is hypothetical I remind you....

Rhambler

I seriously doubt the next IS will have any pure electrification considering Toyota’s glacial pace to adopt anything outside of their comfort zone.

With the 5LS already released, a 5GS rumoured to be axed globally, and rumours of impending 4IS release, I agree with you - there will no IS BEV too soon.
Apart from the next gen CT being the first Lexus BEV, I suspect that of the IS/GS/LS - the midsize GS will be their first BEV.
Because if a customer wants a midsize luxury ICEV, Lexus will simply point to the 7th gen ES.
That leaves room for the GSe to be Lexus' first premium BEV.
All this is hypothetical I remind you....

Rhambler

I seriously doubt the next IS will have any pure electrification considering Toyota’s glacial pace to adopt anything outside of their comfort zone.

With the 5LS already released, a 5GS rumoured to be axed globally, and rumours of impending 4IS release, I agree with you - there will no IS BEV too soon.
Apart from the next gen CT being the first Lexus BEV, I suspect that of the IS/GS/LS - the midsize GS will be their first BEV.
Because if a customer wants a midsize luxury ICEV, Lexus will simply point to the 7th gen ES.
That leaves room for the GSe to be Lexus' first premium BEV.
All this is hypothetical I remind you....

Rhambler

I seriously doubt the next IS will have any pure electrification considering Toyota’s glacial pace to adopt anything outside of their comfort zone.

With the 5LS already released, a 5GS rumoured to be axed globally, and rumours of impending 4IS release, I agree with you - there will no IS BEV too soon.
Apart from the next gen CT being the first Lexus BEV, I suspect that of the IS/GS/LS - the midsize GS will be their first BEV.
Because if a customer wants a midsize luxury ICEV, Lexus will simply point to the 7th gen ES.
That leaves room for the GSe to be Lexus' first premium BEV.
All this is hypothetical I remind you....

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

With the "low" sales of the GS, a low selling BE GS makes sense. Next generation Jaguar XJ, also a low selling model, should also be available as BE only. Sedans are more efficient for battery powered vehicles, how significant that difference is I do not know.

HFCEVs can be built on ICEVs platforms, thus the LS FCV. BEVs on the other hand ideally need a dedicated platform.

ssun30

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

With the "low" sales of the GS, a low selling BE GS makes sense. Next generation Jaguar XJ, also a low selling model, should also be available as BE only. Sedans are more efficient for battery powered vehicles, how significant that difference is I do not know.

HFCEVs can be built on ICEVs platforms, thus the LS FCV. BEVs on the other hand ideally need a dedicated platform.

ssun30

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

With the "low" sales of the GS, a low selling BE GS makes sense. Next generation Jaguar XJ, also a low selling model, should also be available as BE only. Sedans are more efficient for battery powered vehicles, how significant that difference is I do not know.

HFCEVs can be built on ICEVs platforms, thus the LS FCV. BEVs on the other hand ideally need a dedicated platform.

ssun30

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

With the "low" sales of the GS, a low selling BE GS makes sense. Next generation Jaguar XJ, also a low selling model, should also be available as BE only. Sedans are more efficient for battery powered vehicles, how significant that difference is I do not know.

HFCEVs can be built on ICEVs platforms, thus the LS FCV. BEVs on the other hand ideally need a dedicated platform.

ssun30

Given their track record Lexus will be concerned that using all of the battery's discharging capacity and power will set the car on fire or make it last only 200,000 miles instead of 300,000. Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

ssun30

Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Don't forget that Tesla's software limits the effective battery capacity after it's been Supercharged some fairly low number of times. I suspect BEVs for the near future will all perform better when new than after they've been broken in due to issues like this.

That said, I did have some seat time in a new Model 3 over the weekend and it was a lot of fun, even though I was waiting for a part to fall off the whole time :)

ssun30

Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Don't forget that Tesla's software limits the effective battery capacity after it's been Supercharged some fairly low number of times. I suspect BEVs for the near future will all perform better when new than after they've been broken in due to issues like this.

That said, I did have some seat time in a new Model 3 over the weekend and it was a lot of fun, even though I was waiting for a part to fall off the whole time :)

ssun30

Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Don't forget that Tesla's software limits the effective battery capacity after it's been Supercharged some fairly low number of times. I suspect BEVs for the near future will all perform better when new than after they've been broken in due to issues like this.

That said, I did have some seat time in a new Model 3 over the weekend and it was a lot of fun, even though I was waiting for a part to fall off the whole time :)

ssun30

Expect TMC BEVs to have 20% less capacity and power than competition using comparable battery technology.

Don't forget that Tesla's software limits the effective battery capacity after it's been Supercharged some fairly low number of times. I suspect BEVs for the near future will all perform better when new than after they've been broken in due to issues like this.

That said, I did have some seat time in a new Model 3 over the weekend and it was a lot of fun, even though I was waiting for a part to fall off the whole time :)

Levi

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

Batteries are always more durable and reliable when you are not using them at full capacity and full discharge rate; that's just how electrochemistry works. On today's BEVs you have a choice between making the most out of them at BOL and expect degradation at EOL, or a less aggressive battery policy (both dischargiing and recharging) that gives more consistent performance throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. So a Tesla owner can drive like a moron and supercharge all day long and face a crap resale value in three years, or use it more smartly and conserve its battery endurance.

What I am saying is that TMC will likely lock users out of the first option and only leave the latter so every Toyota/Lexus BEV out there will last long and stay safe even driven by ignorant/less-informed people. It's just like how they make their ICE vehicles for decades: build a powerful engine then detune it to make sure it's understressed. and of course at the cost of less impressive performance figures.

That's enough digression for now but I think at a later date I will explain in more details.

Levi

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

Batteries are always more durable and reliable when you are not using them at full capacity and full discharge rate; that's just how electrochemistry works. On today's BEVs you have a choice between making the most out of them at BOL and expect degradation at EOL, or a less aggressive battery policy (both dischargiing and recharging) that gives more consistent performance throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. So a Tesla owner can drive like a moron and supercharge all day long and face a crap resale value in three years, or use it more smartly and conserve its battery endurance.

What I am saying is that TMC will likely lock users out of the first option and only leave the latter so every Toyota/Lexus BEV out there will last long and stay safe even driven by ignorant/less-informed people. It's just like how they make their ICE vehicles for decades: build a powerful engine then detune it to make sure it's understressed. and of course at the cost of less impressive performance figures.

That's enough digression for now but I think at a later date I will explain in more details.

Levi

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

Batteries are always more durable and reliable when you are not using them at full capacity and full discharge rate; that's just how electrochemistry works. On today's BEVs you have a choice between making the most out of them at BOL and expect degradation at EOL, or a less aggressive battery policy (both dischargiing and recharging) that gives more consistent performance throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. So a Tesla owner can drive like a moron and supercharge all day long and face a crap resale value in three years, or use it more smartly and conserve its battery endurance.

What I am saying is that TMC will likely lock users out of the first option and only leave the latter so every Toyota/Lexus BEV out there will last long and stay safe even driven by ignorant/less-informed people. It's just like how they make their ICE vehicles for decades: build a powerful engine then detune it to make sure it's understressed. and of course at the cost of less impressive performance figures.

That's enough digression for now but I think at a later date I will explain in more details.

Levi

Saying that BEVs are not reliable/durable because Teslas are not reliable/durable is an unfair and erroneous way of judging and measuring BEV's reliability/durability. That is like saying premium cars cannot be reliable/durable because BMW is not reliable/durable. Lexus proves it wrong.

BEVs are more about quality control than engineering, at least given the curent off-the-shelf technology. Bosch Li-Ion electric tools are very solid and with good performance (battery life, device life) in harsh working conditions. With the right focus, there is no problem whatsoever, and that is where Toyota will do it right. Tesla's focus is delivering, even if mediocre products. They simply have other objectives.

Batteries are always more durable and reliable when you are not using them at full capacity and full discharge rate; that's just how electrochemistry works. On today's BEVs you have a choice between making the most out of them at BOL and expect degradation at EOL, or a less aggressive battery policy (both dischargiing and recharging) that gives more consistent performance throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. So a Tesla owner can drive like a moron and supercharge all day long and face a crap resale value in three years, or use it more smartly and conserve its battery endurance.

What I am saying is that TMC will likely lock users out of the first option and only leave the latter so every Toyota/Lexus BEV out there will last long and stay safe even driven by ignorant/less-informed people. It's just like how they make their ICE vehicles for decades: build a powerful engine then detune it to make sure it's understressed. and of course at the cost of less impressive performance figures.

That's enough digression for now but I think at a later date I will explain in more details.

Levi

Rhambler

The 1 series, A3, etc. all bring new excitement to the market.

4 cylinder FWD excitement with Dacia interior?

Check km77. Even the prius is more agile than those overpriced pretenders!

Levi

Rhambler

The 1 series, A3, etc. all bring new excitement to the market.

4 cylinder FWD excitement with Dacia interior?

Check km77. Even the prius is more agile than those overpriced pretenders!

Levi

Rhambler

The 1 series, A3, etc. all bring new excitement to the market.

4 cylinder FWD excitement with Dacia interior?

Check km77. Even the prius is more agile than those overpriced pretenders!