Lexus LF-1 Production Crossover to Debut in 2020?

Posted by Kevin on November 26th, 2018

Japanese website Spyder7 is reporting that Lexus will release a production version of the LF-1 Limitless crossover in 2020, just three years after the concept debuted at the 2018 Detroit Auto Show.

Powering the new flagship crossover will be the twin-turbo V6 engine from the LS 500, though Spyder7 suggests a minor power boost up to 424 horsepower. The V6 hybrid engine from the LS/LC 500h will also be used.

Added to the rumor is a production F-brand version of the LF-1, using the much-rumored twin-turbo V8 that we’ve been hearing since before the introduction of the LC coupe. In this incarnation, the LF-1 F would be putting out 661 horsepower and cost $150,000 USD, an amazing power-to-cost ratio when compared to the Lamborghini Urus with its 641 hp and $200,000 price tag.

(Bumping up the horsepower in this hypothetical engine is a smart idea — Lexus has fallen behind competitors in recent times, and could use the boost from a powertrain that outpaces the market average.)

Lexus LF-1 Limitless

Lexus LF-1Lexus LF-1: Concept VehiclePhotochops
Popular Stories

Sorry. No data so far.

Comments
Ian Schmidt
Huh. I'll tell my friend who had his warranty cancelled that he did it wrong :) Or at least without the magic orange piece to distribute the load.
Ian Schmidt
Huh. I'll tell my friend who had his warranty cancelled that he did it wrong :) Or at least without the magic orange piece to distribute the load.
Ian Schmidt
Huh. I'll tell my friend who had his warranty cancelled that he did it wrong :) Or at least without the magic orange piece to distribute the load.
mikeavelli
Ian Schmidt
The question is if they actually don't care about cargo space or if they're just Tesla-mesmerized. People put up with a lot of things in those cars that they wouldn't anywhere else
Yeah the excuses I see given on things is pretty hilarious...but Tesla has some magic!
mikeavelli
Ian Schmidt
The question is if they actually don't care about cargo space or if they're just Tesla-mesmerized. People put up with a lot of things in those cars that they wouldn't anywhere else
Yeah the excuses I see given on things is pretty hilarious...but Tesla has some magic!
mikeavelli
Ian Schmidt
The question is if they actually don't care about cargo space or if they're just Tesla-mesmerized. People put up with a lot of things in those cars that they wouldn't anywhere else
Yeah the excuses I see given on things is pretty hilarious...but Tesla has some magic!
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
L
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
L
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
L
maiaramdan
Honestly Land Cruiser whatever it will be a brand, sub-brand or model they always need to be stiff BOF SUV
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
L
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
Maybe, but is stiffness wanted /needed for off-road heavy duty? Metal bridges are not stiff for example. Semi trailers are not stiff either.
L
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
Maybe, but is stiffness wanted /needed for off-road heavy duty? Metal bridges are not stiff for example. Semi trailers are not stiff either.
L
maiaramdan
There's a lot of papers and documents that talks about stiffness of the ladder frame chassis in compare to the unibody frame
Maybe, but is stiffness wanted /needed for off-road heavy duty? Metal bridges are not stiff for example. Semi trailers are not stiff either.
S
Levi
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
S
Levi
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
S
Levi
I would like to have a complete engineering report regarding unibody vs body-on-frame vs integrated body-on-frame vs whatever else, to know what is truly better for a car like Land Cruiser 200, without all the accounting and marketing bullsh*t. There are a lot of misconceptions, and off course for the Land Cruiser I want the best.
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
L
ssun30
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
Why I asked it because comparing different cars (CUV/SUV vs 4x4) is always comparing apple to oranges. Take the Pajero and Prado for example: the first is unibody and has IRS, the second is body-on-frame and has SRS. While conceptually the Pajero is like a German SUV, it drives like a (very good) truck, not like a car. What is more important is how the product is executed, rather than by which means. Costs plays a role, less so for the Land Cruiser. So Toyota can make the best either way. That means, if BOF still has the advantage, with enough money and R&D, it can be made to be lighter and more agile, if it is desired.
L
ssun30
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
Why I asked it because comparing different cars (CUV/SUV vs 4x4) is always comparing apple to oranges. Take the Pajero and Prado for example: the first is unibody and has IRS, the second is body-on-frame and has SRS. While conceptually the Pajero is like a German SUV, it drives like a (very good) truck, not like a car. What is more important is how the product is executed, rather than by which means. Costs plays a role, less so for the Land Cruiser. So Toyota can make the best either way. That means, if BOF still has the advantage, with enough money and R&D, it can be made to be lighter and more agile, if it is desired.
L
ssun30
I think Mike Sweer said in an interview that unibody can certainly be engineered to achieve similar strength as a frame, at least for light-to-mid size pick-up trucks. But it would kill all the weight benefit due to the amount of strengthening required. The ride quality advantage will stay, but BOF trucks can be engineered to have a smooth ride as well.

The conclusion is like this: if the manufacturer doesn't have any BOF experience, then it's better to do strengthened unibody (aka Honda Ridgeline); if it has been making BOF for decades, then it's better to figure out how to improve ride quality. Either way works and the effort is similar, so there is no absolute answer to this. But for full-size trucks with a lot of payload rating, a frame is unbeatable (so at least Tundra will stay BOF).
Why I asked it because comparing different cars (CUV/SUV vs 4x4) is always comparing apple to oranges. Take the Pajero and Prado for example: the first is unibody and has IRS, the second is body-on-frame and has SRS. While conceptually the Pajero is like a German SUV, it drives like a (very good) truck, not like a car. What is more important is how the product is executed, rather than by which means. Costs plays a role, less so for the Land Cruiser. So Toyota can make the best either way. That means, if BOF still has the advantage, with enough money and R&D, it can be made to be lighter and more agile, if it is desired.
maiaramdan
Honestly after watching the cullinan today and previously this year the Maybach I really want the LF-1 to become production model with whatever name they want LX or GX or new name but they must make it fast, Lexus have a winner in their hands, and really much more better than anything else in this category design wise
maiaramdan
Honestly after watching the cullinan today and previously this year the Maybach I really want the LF-1 to become production model with whatever name they want LX or GX or new name but they must make it fast, Lexus have a winner in their hands, and really much more better than anything else in this category design wise
maiaramdan
Honestly after watching the cullinan today and previously this year the Maybach I really want the LF-1 to become production model with whatever name they want LX or GX or new name but they must make it fast, Lexus have a winner in their hands, and really much more better than anything else in this category design wise
M
The final name will be LF1.

LF-A —> LFA
M
The final name will be LF1.

LF-A —> LFA
M
The final name will be LF1.

LF-A —> LFA

M