No Production Lexus LF-1 Crossover Until 2022?

Levi said

What is risky about? ECU does cost money, it is hardware, but software is already engineered and written, it should be free to write on the ecu for which it has already been paid.

Car theft is a totally different topic and so is warranty.

Click to expand...

Because it's easily possible from the ECU to blow up the engine in various horrible ways. And on the infotainment end, that stuff's still on the CAN bus so it can do things like cause unintended acceleration or shift into reverse at 65 MPH. The well-publicized FCA/Jeep hacks a few years ago all got into the car through the infotainment, and they were able to remotely steer, accelerate, and brake.

Ian Schmidt said

Nitpick: QNX isn't Linux based, QNX and Linux are both UNIX clones. (Real Bell Labs UNIX is best known to consumers as the basis of all of Apple's stuff and the PlayStation 4).

And yeah, nobody's gonna let you customize. Tesla's been locking down third-party customizations as they're found.

Click to expand...

I figure explaining unix was a bit too semantic. Most barely understand what linux is.

Ian Schmidt said

Nitpick: QNX isn't Linux based, QNX and Linux are both UNIX clones. (Real Bell Labs UNIX is best known to consumers as the basis of all of Apple's stuff and the PlayStation 4).

And yeah, nobody's gonna let you customize. Tesla's been locking down third-party customizations as they're found.

Click to expand...

also to nitpick, they used QNX before, they moved to Automotive grade Linux now.

In the end, it looks the same to the end customer, but should be easier for them.

also, while we are talking abount Infotainment - people do not understand that they have invested a lot of time in the past 15+ years into systems they are having now.

In 2008/2009 at dealer council in Europe, we heard that they have been developing a new infotainment system that will blow everything else out of water. Result was first version of Entune/Display Audio.

They got some things right and some things bad for traditional auto maker, hopefully they will be able to re-do it in next generation system, properly.

spwolf said

also, while we are talking abount Infotainment - people do not understand that they have invested a lot of time in the past 15+ years into systems they are having now.

In 2008/2009 at dealer council in Europe, we heard that they have been developing a new infotainment system that will blow everything else out of water. Result was first version of Entune/Display Audio.

They got some things right and some things bad for traditional auto maker, hopefully they will be able to re-do it in next generation system, properly.

Click to expand...

15 years to develop, I don't know who they blew out, because a lot of people like myself who used it in the RX and ES found it to not be very intuitive.

Entune was a joke

Tragic Bronson said

15 years to develop, I don't know who they blew out, because a lot of people like myself who used it in the RX and ES found it to not be very intuitive.

Entune was a joke

Toyota's Entune App Suite is breaking Camrys

My stepfather has driven a Toyota ($NYSE:TM) Camry since the 1980s. His last one, a 2006 Hybrid with over 200,000 miles on the odometer, was finally traded in for a candy-apple red 2018 special edition. Like a proud father he sent pictures to all his children and even to the two grandchildren...

media.thinknum.com

Click to expand...

sure... what I am saying is that a lot of effort went into it.

so they are not late into infotainment field, they are just bad at it.

spwolf said

so they are not late into infotainment field, they are just bad at it.

Click to expand...

No argument there. I think they wanted to go their own way with infotainment, with the Scout app instead of Carplay and Android Auto early on. No automaker these days is trying to do their own proprietary version anymore because they are not tech companies.

Tragic Bronson said

No argument there. I think they wanted to go their own way with infotainment, with the Scout app instead of Carplay and Android Auto early on. No automaker these days is trying to do their own proprietary version anymore because they are not tech companies.

Click to expand...

Plenty of tech companies are bad at UI/UX too.

I am glad to see that it was reiterated that the LQ is not going to be a Lexus. At least not until a formal full-length trademark is filed in the form of LQ 600 or similar. You remember what happened with "TX" back in 2013, with a bunch of extrapolations on something that had no formal trademark denoting engine capacity. That being said, Instagram's "Allcarnews" is NOT a good source and are the entity that created a rumor about a non-existent Mirai-based Lexus.

@Gecko and co. usage of "LF-1" is probably for the best for the time being.

One thing that disappoints me about the past, is how the heck did this never go into production?


When you look at the landscape of the automotive marketplace all together in 2003, no one of high caliber (sorry GM) had anything like this in production.

In development though? Hell yes (see below). What the hell were Lexus product planners thinking in 2001-05?, to reject making the HP-X/LF-X into a production vehicle?

Either development should have been underway from about 2001ish, with HPX as teaser of finished car in 2003 and production vehicle in 2004-05. Or pure design study in 2003 again as HPX, then production vehicle in 2006-07.

Underpinning this concept was the N Platform, a new unibody RWD architecture in 2003, later debuting on the S180 Crown. In fact, the percieved regression over the XF40 LS of 2006 against XF30 LS 430, I wonder if can be connected from switching a bespoke LS platform to a stretched version of executive class N Platform shared with RWD JDM Toyotas and 3GS (S190) ?

For the first time, the next S-Class (W223-2020) will essentially ride on the same MRA II architecture as the future E-Class (W214-2023) and C-Class (W206-2021). Outgoing W222 flagship was a heavy redesign of W221 S-Class introduced in 2005 ironically, married to ultra-luxury elements heavily borrowed from Maybach and British luxury.

Anyway, back to LF-X (HPX)

So the luxury crossover segment brewing in April 2003:

• Cadillac had revealed the production version of the ugly, yet revolutionary unibody RWD SRX 7-seater crossover due in Sept. '03 All in spite of their already successful BOF GMT800 basis 2nd generation Escalade. Styling was finalized by GM management in 2000 and initiated in 1998.View attachment 3840View attachment 3843View attachment 3841
• Audi/VAG the longitudinal FWD-basis (std. Quattro AWD), yet unibody 7 seater Q7 for early 2006 launch off of new Pikes Peaks Concept (did actually influence Q7). Production styling was frozen in late 2003, entering production in November 2005.View attachment 3844View attachment 3838View attachment 3835
• DaimlerChrysler had already signed off on X164 program initiated in 2000, for bigger "ML LWB" as G-Class replacement in 2006. A full sized, uniframe, RWD crossover. Final styling was frozen in 2002 ahead of Lexus concept showing in 2003. This later arrived in 2006 as the GL (now GLS). View attachment 3834View attachment 3839
• I don't consider the E70 BMW X5 later introduced in 2006 to be a genuine, large 7-seater.View attachment 3845View attachment 3846

What was Lexus doing by dropping the ball and not putting this vehicle into production?

First shown as the HPX (by designer Bill Chergosky in 2002) at the New York International Auto Show in April 2003 as the first public introduction of L-finesse design language created in 2001 and then shown in Tokyo in October 2003 as the renamed LF-X.



This thing was fire and more beautiful than the current LF-1 on the exterior. The parent of LF-1 essentially. Is it because the SUV/crossover landscape in the early 2000s was still in infancy, feeling LX and GX were good enough on family sized side of things and RX was too precious to threaten its success with another crossover?

Even the 5-seater Porsche Cayenne (L-FWD/AWD) had just been released and much smaller Infiniti FX45 launched January 24, 2003.


20 decades SHOULDN'T have elapsed between HPX/LF-X and production LF-1. Like with the LF-LC concept. LF-1 is taking the whole nine yards and wasn't in planning long enough to be ready to go.

No I'm thinking Lexus does look in here, a few moments after this post from @Carmaker1 goes up, this shows up on Facebook:

View attachment 3848

Will1991 said

No I'm thinking Lexus does look in here, a few moments after this post from @Carmaker1 goes up, this shows up on Facebook:

View attachment 3848

Click to expand...

🤔🤨😐😑😶🙄😏

Tragic Bronson said

No argument there. I think they wanted to go their own way with infotainment, with the Scout app instead of Carplay and Android Auto early on. No automaker these days is trying to do their own proprietary version anymore because they are not tech companies.

Click to expand...

Have you owned a Lexus or Toyota with Car Play? I can tell you, there are pros and there are cons of Apple Car play.

Ian Schmidt said

Because it's easily possible from the ECU to blow up the engine in various horrible ways. And on the infotainment end, that stuff's still on the CAN bus so it can do things like cause unintended acceleration or shift into reverse at 65 MPH. The well-publicized FCA/Jeep hacks a few years ago all got into the car through the infotainment, and they were able to remotely steer, accelerate, and brake.

Click to expand...

That is not a customer's issue but a designers/engineers issue. It is their task to use isolation and compartmentalization as security measures. In cars, hardware is not customizable, but software (I am talking about UI) is (in theory). If customization as in UI on phones is limited it is because for the system to remain secure, UI features have to be built in with toggle switches, which is a lot of work.

It is carmakers fault. If the customer cannot 'modify' his car by themselves (for obvious reasons), the dealership should be able. Or they should make their UI not so overloaded that I have the urge to customize it, because they did such a bad job in first place. Google and Apple are no better.

CRSKTN said

I figure explaining unix was a bit too semantic. Most barely understand what linux is.

Click to expand...

It is from some article I read about Linux. If did not expect GNU/Linux to show up on a Lexus inc-car screen, obviously.

And yes I was sure QNX was not what they talked about is was already what Lexus uses. I also think Ford used QNX, that I related to Blackberry.

Carmaker1 said

I am glad to see that it was reiterated that the LQ is not going to be a Lexus. At least not until a formal full-length trademark is filed in the form of LQ 600 or similar. You remember what happened with "TX" back in 2013, with a bunch of extrapolations on something that had no formal trademark denoting engine capacity.

One thing that disappoints me about the past, is how the heck did this never go into production?

When you look at the landscape of the automotive marketplace all together in 2003, no one of high caliber (sorry GM) had anything like this in production.

In development though? Hell yes (see below). What the hell were Lexus product planners thinking in 2001-05?, to reject making the HP-X/LF-X into a production vehicle?

Either development should have been underway from about 2001ish, with HPX as teaser of finished car in 2003 and production vehicle in 2004-05. Or pure design study in 2003 again as HPX, then production vehicle in 2006-07.

20 decades SHOULDN'T have elapsed between HPX/LF-X and production LF-1. Like with the LF-LC concept. LF-1 is taking the whole nine yards and wasn't in planning long enough to be ready to go.

Click to expand...

What if it happens again, especially given the current circumstances?

What if instead of the LF-1, they make a Lexus version of the Yaris-CUV?

Levi said

That is not a customer's issue but a designers/engineers issue.

Click to expand...

This is textbook Dunning Kruger, sorry. You arent informed about what you're discussing and you're throwing out fantasies like reality doesnt exist and that nobody before you has thrown resources at things like this.

"What you're asking for isnt really technically feasible"
"NO! I want it! Youuuuu just didnt try hard enough! Blame the technical staff!"

If you want customization beyond skin deep stuff, you're dreaming. Nobody is going to be jailbreaking their vehicle or anything anytime soon.

The root problem (ha ha) is that CAN has no security, it was never intended for users to have access beyond an OBD-II reader. This has been great in a lot of cars for tuners because they can flash the ECU without opening the hood, but allowing serious customization on anything connected to the bus is probably never happening.

CarPlay/Android Auto is much more secure because the car's just a dumb screen then. Everything interesting's on your phone and there's no way for it to get to CAN over that link.

Carmaker1 said

I am glad to see that it was reiterated that the LQ is not going to be a Lexus. At least not until a formal full-length trademark is filed in the form of LQ 600 or similar. You remember what happened with "TX" back in 2013, with a bunch of extrapolations on something that had no formal trademark denoting engine capacity. That being said, Instagram's "Allcarnews" is NOT a good source and are the entity that created a rumor about a non-existent Mirai-based Lexus.

@Gecko and co. usage of "LF-1" is probably for the best for the time being.

One thing that disappoints me about the past, is how the heck did this never go into production?

When you look at the landscape of the automotive marketplace all together in 2003, no one of high caliber (sorry GM) had anything like this in production.

In development though? Hell yes (see below). What the hell were Lexus product planners thinking in 2001-05?, to reject making the HP-X/LF-X into a production vehicle?

Either development should have been underway from about 2001ish, with HPX as teaser of finished car in 2003 and production vehicle in 2004-05. Or pure design study in 2003 again as HPX, then production vehicle in 2006-07.

Underpinning this concept was the N Platform, a new unibody RWD architecture in 2003, later debuting on the S180 Crown. In fact, the percieved regression over the XF40 LS of 2006 against XF30 LS 430, I wonder if can be connected from switching a bespoke LS platform to a stretched version of executive class N Platform shared with RWD JDM Toyotas and 3GS (S190) ?

For the first time, the next S-Class (W223-2020) will essentially ride on the same MRA II architecture as the future E-Class (W214-2023) and C-Class (W206-2021). Outgoing W222 flagship was a heavy redesign of W221 S-Class introduced in 2005 ironically, married to ultra-luxury elements heavily borrowed from Maybach and British luxury.

Anyway, back to LF-X (HPX)

So the luxury crossover segment brewing in April 2003:

• Cadillac had revealed the production version of the ugly, yet revolutionary unibody RWD SRX 7-seater crossover due in Sept. '03 All in spite of their already successful BOF GMT800 basis 2nd generation Escalade. Styling was finalized by GM management in 2000 and initiated in 1998.View attachment 3840View attachment 3843View attachment 3841
• Audi/VAG the longitudinal FWD-basis (std. Quattro AWD), yet unibody 7 seater Q7 for early 2006 launch off of new Pikes Peaks Concept (did actually influence Q7). Production styling was frozen in late 2003, entering production in November 2005.View attachment 3844View attachment 3838View attachment 3835
• DaimlerChrysler had already signed off on X164 program initiated in 2000, for bigger "ML LWB" as G-Class replacement in 2006. A full sized, uniframe, RWD crossover. Final styling was frozen in 2002 ahead of Lexus concept showing in 2003. This later arrived in 2006 as the GL (now GLS). View attachment 3834View attachment 3839
• I don't consider the E70 BMW X5 later introduced in 2006 to be a genuine, large 7-seater.View attachment 3845View attachment 3846

What was Lexus doing by dropping the ball and not putting this vehicle into production?

First shown as the HPX (by designer Bill Chergosky in 2002) at the New York International Auto Show in April 2003 as the first public introduction of L-finesse design language created in 2001 and then shown in Tokyo in October 2003 as the renamed LF-X.

This thing was fire and more beautiful than the current LF-1 on the exterior. The parent of LF-1 essentially. Is it because the SUV/crossover landscape in the early 2000s was still in infancy, feeling LX and GX were good enough on family sized side of things and RX was too precious to threaten its success with another crossover?

Even the 5-seater Porsche Cayenne (L-FWD/AWD) had just been released and much smaller Infiniti FX45 launched January 24, 2003.

20 decades SHOULDN'T have elapsed between HPX/LF-X and production LF-1. Like with the LF-LC concept. LF-1 is taking the whole nine yards and wasn't in planning long enough to be ready to go.

Click to expand...

I of all people should know better than to use LQ, but i used it as a stand-in lazily. LF-1 it is.

This is a great post btw. WHY DIDN'T THEY BUILD THIS?! I still love that original infiniti coupe suv generation. This lexus equivalent would've been a new segment, a killer product.

I'm resisting reading into the lexus post.

Levi said

I also think Ford used QNX, that I related to Blackberry.

Click to expand...

I can vouch for that, given that my son-in-law (an electrical engineer) transitioned from working for BlackBerry to working for Ford.

Will1991 said

No I'm thinking Lexus does look in here, a few moments after this post from @Carmaker1 goes up, this shows up on Facebook:

View attachment 3848

Click to expand...

Suddenly I am very uncomfortable.😬

This probably explains the reduction in spy shots...

Club Lexus is more of a tangled web for them to readily follow, than here with an excellent layout to observe our discussion.

Anyway, LF 1 was hinted at by Mag X in spring 2017. It was described as an LS wagon, which sounded farfetched, but is now entirely credible. Are they having a hard time naming this vehicle? Sometimes the naming process takes longer than development.

Carmaker1 said

This probably explains the reduction in spy shots...

Click to expand...

Honestly if this is the case then Lexus seriously believes that everyone in the world are fixating or caring over every single move they make because they think everything about them. Does Lexus seriously think they're the most important people out there and they don't have to act like other brands?

What is a few spy shots going to do? It absolutely does nothing negative for Toyota/Lexus (if you cover the car up in the right places to prevent other manufacturers getting ideas from seeing the car) and brings way more positive press and buzz towards the brand.

I just don't get their way of thinking. I would have gotten some answers from an insider that I know about recent Lexus developments by now but I have been permanently banned (for some inexplicable reason) from trying to access the medium that this individual resides in. I have tried to access it but I have been blacklisted.

Would LT (Luxury Touring) work as the official name for LF-1? That makes sense as they also have the CT. Only problem is it conflicts with a Lexus Tundra (Luxury Truck) if they decide to build one, but that could be called LU (Luxury Utility).

ssun30 said

Would LT (Luxury Touring) work as the official name for LF-1? That makes sense as they also have the CT. Only problem is it conflicts with a Lexus Tundra (Luxury Truck) if they decide to build one, but that could be called LU (Luxury Utility).

Click to expand...

LT/Luxury Touring sounds good to me!

Sorry, LT reminds me too much of this... the failed Lincoln Mark LT luxury (pickup) truck.
View attachment 3872

Is there a reason we can't just call it the LF-1? I actually like that name a lot. I know it doesn't "fit" into what we call everything else but I like the name at least.

LexsCTJill said

Have you owned a Lexus or Toyota with Car Play? I can tell you, there are pros and there are cons of Apple Car play.

Click to expand...

I've not owned a vehicle with Car Play yet, only have used CP on my friend's C-HR and a rented 2019 RAV4; but I've rented plenty of other brands with Carplay. When I rented a car with CP, having the maps on the screen was important since I travel to new places for work since I have to visit clients, and Google Calendar links to Google Maps. Not having Carplay/Android Auto is a deal breaker to me. I briefly had an Android phone for work and did try it on the rental as well, and also found it to be useful for the same reasons.

James said

Is there a reason we can't just call it the LF-1? I actually like that name a lot. I know it doesn't "fit" into what we call everything else but I like the name at least.

Click to expand...

LF-1 500h
LF-1 600h
LF-1 500
LF-1 600
LF-1 F

... doesn't work.

Sulu said

Sorry, LT reminds me too much of this... the failed Lincoln Mark LT luxury (pickup) truck.

Click to expand...

Failed, or ahead of its time?

Levi said

Failed, or ahead of its time?

Click to expand...

Both probably. Haha.

Someone just jumped on Lexus by releasing a 4 seater top-SUV:

I saw that. It has been done for a long time in Landcruisers, mostly using Mercedes S Class parts.