Lexus LF-1 Production Crossover to Debut in 2020?

I heard the same news just like you . The LF-1 would be great addition to the line up . The sales for February for the GX is up about over 200 and something units thus far . The GX is more affordable on a lease as well as a finance, and once it sells over or break even for the year it will be staying . Plus it give a different dimension to the market . The LF-1 would be the sporty to the LX , like the Rx is to the GX . But we will see man . Great chat man .

I heard the same news just like you . The LF-1 would be great addition to the line up . The sales for February for the GX is up about over 200 and something units thus far . The GX is more affordable on a lease as well as a finance, and once it sells over or break even for the year it will be staying . Plus it give a different dimension to the market . The LF-1 would be the sporty to the LX , like the Rx is to the GX . But we will see man . Great chat man .

I heard the same news just like you . The LF-1 would be great addition to the line up . The sales for February for the GX is up about over 200 and something units thus far . The GX is more affordable on a lease as well as a finance, and once it sells over or break even for the year it will be staying . Plus it give a different dimension to the market . The LF-1 would be the sporty to the LX , like the Rx is to the GX . But we will see man . Great chat man .

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

LF-1 will not ever replace LX. Lexus made it clear that this was an addition to their flagship portfolio alongside LS, LX, LC.

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been. In many global markets, like the Middle East and others, LX is the #1 selling Lexus model. LX outsells the LS worldwide - it is one of the most important global models, especially as SUV craze continues. LX's place as the Lexus flagship is becoming even more important.

Totally agree about Prado, 4Runner and GX consolidating to one model - only makes sense.

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

LF-1 will not ever replace LX. Lexus made it clear that this was an addition to their flagship portfolio alongside LS, LX, LC.

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been. In many global markets, like the Middle East and others, LX is the #1 selling Lexus model. LX outsells the LS worldwide - it is one of the most important global models, especially as SUV craze continues. LX's place as the Lexus flagship is becoming even more important.

Totally agree about Prado, 4Runner and GX consolidating to one model - only makes sense.

ssun30

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

LF-1 will not ever replace LX. Lexus made it clear that this was an addition to their flagship portfolio alongside LS, LX, LC.

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been. In many global markets, like the Middle East and others, LX is the #1 selling Lexus model. LX outsells the LS worldwide - it is one of the most important global models, especially as SUV craze continues. LX's place as the Lexus flagship is becoming even more important.

Totally agree about Prado, 4Runner and GX consolidating to one model - only makes sense.

Levi

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

Levi

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

Levi

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

Gecko

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been.

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

Sure the luxury SUV segment has a capacity of 2k units per month (US numbers only) for a competent carmaker, using the GLS as a reference point. Since these are very high margin products, the BOF LX only needs like 500 monthly to remain a profitable program (as it is now) with the rest 1500 coming from the LF-1. The market is there for a BOF LX; it is even more justifiable than the LS. You are entirely right about that.

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

This. I need to check on the LX some day. Still does not justify a ¥100k premium over even the limited edition LC, but that's light-years ahead of the more expensive BMW X5 xDrive 50i and GLS450.

Gecko

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been.

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

Sure the luxury SUV segment has a capacity of 2k units per month (US numbers only) for a competent carmaker, using the GLS as a reference point. Since these are very high margin products, the BOF LX only needs like 500 monthly to remain a profitable program (as it is now) with the rest 1500 coming from the LF-1. The market is there for a BOF LX; it is even more justifiable than the LS. You are entirely right about that.

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

This. I need to check on the LX some day. Still does not justify a ¥100k premium over even the limited edition LC, but that's light-years ahead of the more expensive BMW X5 xDrive 50i and GLS450.

Gecko

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been.

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

Sure the luxury SUV segment has a capacity of 2k units per month (US numbers only) for a competent carmaker, using the GLS as a reference point. Since these are very high margin products, the BOF LX only needs like 500 monthly to remain a profitable program (as it is now) with the rest 1500 coming from the LF-1. The market is there for a BOF LX; it is even more justifiable than the LS. You are entirely right about that.

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

This. I need to check on the LX some day. Still does not justify a ¥100k premium over even the limited edition LC, but that's light-years ahead of the more expensive BMW X5 xDrive 50i and GLS450.

ssun30

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Part of what makes LX and GX so attractive is that they are insanely profitable because they use 80% Land Cruiser 200 and Land Cruiser Prado hardware with wood and leather added - Lexus has talked candidly about this. There is no way a GA-L based CUV can have such hefty margins at this point. Lexus will not just walk away from that profit. There are three generations of LX heritage as well, and completely changing it to a two row, high performance CUV would be total strategy shift and major turnoff for buyers. The people who buy LXs are quite like the people who buy Land Cruisers - they buy them because they know how dependable they are, they drive them for 12 years, put 150-200k miles on them, and then turn it over to their children or grand children.

LF-1's competitive set is Cayenne, Range Rover Sport, maybe the X5. LX competitive set is the Escalade and QX80, and on the outer edges, Mercedes GLS and Range Rover. These are two totally different buyer groups, which is why Lexus talked about positioning LF-1 alongside the LX instead of replacing it. Lexus is very intentional with their words in press releases for flagship vehicles.

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

ssun30

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Part of what makes LX and GX so attractive is that they are insanely profitable because they use 80% Land Cruiser 200 and Land Cruiser Prado hardware with wood and leather added - Lexus has talked candidly about this. There is no way a GA-L based CUV can have such hefty margins at this point. Lexus will not just walk away from that profit. There are three generations of LX heritage as well, and completely changing it to a two row, high performance CUV would be total strategy shift and major turnoff for buyers. The people who buy LXs are quite like the people who buy Land Cruisers - they buy them because they know how dependable they are, they drive them for 12 years, put 150-200k miles on them, and then turn it over to their children or grand children.

LF-1's competitive set is Cayenne, Range Rover Sport, maybe the X5. LX competitive set is the Escalade and QX80, and on the outer edges, Mercedes GLS and Range Rover. These are two totally different buyer groups, which is why Lexus talked about positioning LF-1 alongside the LX instead of replacing it. Lexus is very intentional with their words in press releases for flagship vehicles.

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

ssun30

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Part of what makes LX and GX so attractive is that they are insanely profitable because they use 80% Land Cruiser 200 and Land Cruiser Prado hardware with wood and leather added - Lexus has talked candidly about this. There is no way a GA-L based CUV can have such hefty margins at this point. Lexus will not just walk away from that profit. There are three generations of LX heritage as well, and completely changing it to a two row, high performance CUV would be total strategy shift and major turnoff for buyers. The people who buy LXs are quite like the people who buy Land Cruisers - they buy them because they know how dependable they are, they drive them for 12 years, put 150-200k miles on them, and then turn it over to their children or grand children.

LF-1's competitive set is Cayenne, Range Rover Sport, maybe the X5. LX competitive set is the Escalade and QX80, and on the outer edges, Mercedes GLS and Range Rover. These are two totally different buyer groups, which is why Lexus talked about positioning LF-1 alongside the LX instead of replacing it. Lexus is very intentional with their words in press releases for flagship vehicles.

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

ssun30

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Gecko

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

Both the LF-1 and LX are vehicles that can stand on their own without stepping on each other's toes. I believe the current high-end luxury focus of Lexus is a long-term plan that's reshaping the brand, and four separate flagships fits very well with that strategy.

ssun30

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Gecko

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

Both the LF-1 and LX are vehicles that can stand on their own without stepping on each other's toes. I believe the current high-end luxury focus of Lexus is a long-term plan that's reshaping the brand, and four separate flagships fits very well with that strategy.

ssun30

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Gecko

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

Both the LF-1 and LX are vehicles that can stand on their own without stepping on each other's toes. I believe the current high-end luxury focus of Lexus is a long-term plan that's reshaping the brand, and four separate flagships fits very well with that strategy.

@Gecko, I am honestly with Levi & ssun30
I feel the Land Cruiser is prisoned under LX shadow, if you see the history "before LX450" the Land Cruiser was always compared to the Range Rover and in case LX switches to the unibody, thist will again makes the Land Cruiser enters the Top lux. Market noting that until the previous LX it was not a Lexus and sold in Japan under Toyota Land Cruiser Cygnus


Regarding the GX, Prado, 4-Runner, Fortuner, Innova, Tacoma, Hi-Lux

This maybe the most profitable chassis, Toyota already is working in a BOF based on the new TNGA and we may see all of them got renewed and SUV is not the same case as the sedan, so if they dropped the international Camry and maybe dropping the international next Corolla, that not meant that they will drop also either Prado or 4-Runner, I see it the 180 degrees situation, as a Toyota executive said that they are in the 90th where you can put more than one car in the same category.

@Gecko, I am honestly with Levi & ssun30
I feel the Land Cruiser is prisoned under LX shadow, if you see the history "before LX450" the Land Cruiser was always compared to the Range Rover and in case LX switches to the unibody, thist will again makes the Land Cruiser enters the Top lux. Market noting that until the previous LX it was not a Lexus and sold in Japan under Toyota Land Cruiser Cygnus


Regarding the GX, Prado, 4-Runner, Fortuner, Innova, Tacoma, Hi-Lux

This maybe the most profitable chassis, Toyota already is working in a BOF based on the new TNGA and we may see all of them got renewed and SUV is not the same case as the sedan, so if they dropped the international Camry and maybe dropping the international next Corolla, that not meant that they will drop also either Prado or 4-Runner, I see it the 180 degrees situation, as a Toyota executive said that they are in the 90th where you can put more than one car in the same category.

@Gecko, I am honestly with Levi & ssun30
I feel the Land Cruiser is prisoned under LX shadow, if you see the history "before LX450" the Land Cruiser was always compared to the Range Rover and in case LX switches to the unibody, thist will again makes the Land Cruiser enters the Top lux. Market noting that until the previous LX it was not a Lexus and sold in Japan under Toyota Land Cruiser Cygnus


Regarding the GX, Prado, 4-Runner, Fortuner, Innova, Tacoma, Hi-Lux

This maybe the most profitable chassis, Toyota already is working in a BOF based on the new TNGA and we may see all of them got renewed and SUV is not the same case as the sedan, so if they dropped the international Camry and maybe dropping the international next Corolla, that not meant that they will drop also either Prado or 4-Runner, I see it the 180 degrees situation, as a Toyota executive said that they are in the 90th where you can put more than one car in the same category.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

That is not very fair. Take the pre-facelift Land Cruiser top spec and the pre-facelift LX, and the difference is almost nothing. The last facelift of the LX is also way more extensive than what the last Land Cruiser got. The LX has every exterior panel except doors and roof, new. Also in addition to a completely new dashboard with new control buttons, it has new door interior panels. Look at the difference between Land Cruiser GX (UN, military, low-spec,...) and top spec, the difference is huge.

Your price justification also shows that the margin of the LX is not necessarily higher, if it can justify its price but not the Land Cruiser. Imagine how overpriced a Land Cruiser GX is! Or the Land Cruiser 70 for that matter.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

That is not very fair. Take the pre-facelift Land Cruiser top spec and the pre-facelift LX, and the difference is almost nothing. The last facelift of the LX is also way more extensive than what the last Land Cruiser got. The LX has every exterior panel except doors and roof, new. Also in addition to a completely new dashboard with new control buttons, it has new door interior panels. Look at the difference between Land Cruiser GX (UN, military, low-spec,...) and top spec, the difference is huge.

Your price justification also shows that the margin of the LX is not necessarily higher, if it can justify its price but not the Land Cruiser. Imagine how overpriced a Land Cruiser GX is! Or the Land Cruiser 70 for that matter.

Gecko

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

That is not very fair. Take the pre-facelift Land Cruiser top spec and the pre-facelift LX, and the difference is almost nothing. The last facelift of the LX is also way more extensive than what the last Land Cruiser got. The LX has every exterior panel except doors and roof, new. Also in addition to a completely new dashboard with new control buttons, it has new door interior panels. Look at the difference between Land Cruiser GX (UN, military, low-spec,...) and top spec, the difference is huge.

Your price justification also shows that the margin of the LX is not necessarily higher, if it can justify its price but not the Land Cruiser. Imagine how overpriced a Land Cruiser GX is! Or the Land Cruiser 70 for that matter.