Rendered: The Next-Generation Lexus CT Hatchback

krew

Site Founder
Administrator
Messages
3,686
Reactions
5,670
krew
16-06-02-next-generation-lexus-ct-1024x512.jpg


The latest rendition of what's next for smallest vehicle in the Lexus lineup.
View the original article post
 
  • Like
Reactions: Den

GSCT

Founding Member
Messages
246
Reactions
323
Well, it may be more practical and less "hot hatch", but I like it!
 

corradoMR2

Founding Member
Messages
729
Reactions
1,124
I like the rendering.

This taller hatch has all the design elements to also be a mini-ute on a raised suspension, a la A-class / GLA.
 

Levi

Expert
Messages
2,707
Reactions
3,134
I like the rendering.

This taller hatch has all the design elements to also be a mini-ute on a raised suspension, a la A-class / GLA.

I like these types of cars compared to useless crossovers, but being FWD-based, they are still worthless off-road compared to Subaru XV, which is a pity.
 

Gecko

Administrator
Messages
4,721
Reactions
11,283
I don't hate that render at all... it's pretty sharp. I just wish Lexus would quit with the unnecessary creases and hard lines, as seen in the RX. Less is more, IMO.
 

GSCT

Founding Member
Messages
246
Reactions
323
I like these types of cars compared to useless crossovers, but being FWD-based, they are still worthless off-road compared to Subaru XV, which is a pity.

I don't think 98% of CUV owners take their vehicles off road ( if anyone has statistics that would be helpful). What they seem to like is the elevated driving position, greater practicality (any one with a modern child seat certainly gets their appeal) and style. I predict a CT like the magazine's rendering will be much more popular than the current model and buyers won't care if it has any real off- road capability.
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
I don't think 98% of CUV owners take their vehicles off road ( if anyone has statistics that would be helpful). What they seem to like is the elevated driving position, greater practicality (any one with a modern child seat certainly gets their appeal) and style. I predict a CT like the magazine's rendering will be much more popular than the current model and buyers won't care if it has any real off- road capability.

I can make a strong argument it's mostly a market trend based on style and assumed views by consumers. Minivans also have high seating positions, and objectively far more practicality than any CUV, especially for people with kids. Of course, many view minivans as not very stylish. Yes it's also true that not everyone needs the big space of a minivan, but in that sense, sedans are not a bad option.

Going back to assumed views, many view CUVs as "safer" than cars, when a lot of the smaller CUVs aren't any safer in reality than midsize sedans. That's simply the view that many consumers have. A lot of that view is due to the higher seating position, elevated suspension, and visual bulk that CUVs have over cars/sedans.

A valid reason for buying some CUVs is that some of them ride better on poor and undulating roads. However other CUVs ride quite poorly on rough roads. I've met plenty of CUV owners, and talked with people working in the industry about what they've heard from CUV drivers. The majority of them don't even prioritize driving over bad roads specifically. It may fall under the general assumption though of CUVs being thought of as "safer" by many consumers.

Decades ago, there was a huge market trend with wagons. IMHO, CUVs are simply modern wagons; the current CUV craze is simply our generation's 'wagon trend'. True SUVs (body-on-frame, with real off-road capability) still remain a small, but consistent slice of the market.
 
Last edited:

Levi

Expert
Messages
2,707
Reactions
3,134
I can make a strong argument it's mostly a market trend based on style and assumed views by consumers. Minivans also have high seating positions, and objectively far more practicality than any CUV, especially for people with kids. Of course, many view minivans as not very stylish. Yes it's also true that not everyone needs the big space of a minivan, but in that sense, sedans are not a bad option.

Going back to assumed views, many view CUVs as "safer" than cars, when a lot of the smaller CUVs aren't any safer in reality than midsize sedans. That's simply the view that many consumers have. A lot of that view is due to the higher seating position, elevated suspension, and visual bulk that CUVs have over cars/sedans.

A valid reason for buying some CUVs is that some of them ride better on poor and undulating roads. However other CUVs ride quite poorly on rough roads. I've met plenty of CUV owners, and talked with people working in the industry about what they've heard from CUV drivers. The majority of them don't even prioritize driving over bad roads specifically. It may fall under the general assumption though of CUVs being though of as "safer" by many consumers.

Decades ago, there was a huge market trend with wagons. IMHO, CUVs are simply modern wagons; the current CUV craze is simply our generation's 'wagon trend'. True SUVs (body-on-frame, with real off-road capability) still remain a small, but consistent slice of the market.

What you said is the sad reality of today's society, where trend is more important than necessity or even simple desire. I have absolutely nothing against people's opinions, tastes, preferences, on the contrary it is highly important for our advancement/progress. But as you say, people chose SUVs/Crossovers without rational understanding, just following the trend. I can understand the safety aspect or perception of SUVs/Crossovers, but it is mostly flawed. Driving different cars, I personally find high seating position less safe with regards to car control, I as a driver feel less connected to the car, and thus in worse control of it.

As for crash safety, of course in addition to chassis design, mass also plays an advantageous role, but if everyone drives SUVs/Crossovers assuming they are heavier and consequently safer, this advantage disappears.

Among SUVs/Crossovers, I would categorize 3 types:
  • Off-road pretenders: FWD based, lifted (ex.: VW Tiguan)
  • Soft-roaders: higher ground clearance, AWD (ex.: VW Touareg)
  • Off-roaders: body-on-frame, high ground clearance, 4WD (ex.: VW Amarok)
The first group is totally useless, the second is IMO a bad compromise (Audi Quattro All-road and Subaru's I put also in this group as a rather good compromise), and the third group is an extreme that few people need, but at least is useful.
 
Messages
23
Reactions
32
This would be a great car for Lexus to use as a test-bed for giving F-Sport vehicles a power bump. Or, expand the CT model line to reflect the NX: CT 200t, CT 200h. I'd buy a CT if it offered a different powertrain option outside of the herd-of-turtles hybrid setup.
 

GSCT

Founding Member
Messages
246
Reactions
323
This would be a great car for Lexus to use as a test-bed for giving F-Sport vehicles a power bump. Or, expand the CT model line to reflect the NX: CT 200t, CT 200h.

I agree, but doubt we will see it. It's likely only "F" models that will have more powerful engines.
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
What you said is the sad reality of today's society, where trend is more important than necessity or even simple desire. I have absolutely nothing against people's opinions, tastes, preferences, on the contrary it is highly important for our advancement/progress. But as you say, people chose SUVs/Crossovers without rational understanding, just following the trend. I can understand the safety aspect or perception of SUVs/Crossovers, but it is mostly flawed. Driving different cars, I personally find high seating position less safe with regards to car control, I as a driver feel less connected to the car, and thus in worse control of it.

As for crash safety, of course in addition to chassis design, mass also plays an advantageous role, but if everyone drives SUVs/Crossovers assuming they are heavier and consequently safer, this advantage disappears.

Among SUVs/Crossovers, I would categorize 3 types:
  • Off-road pretenders: FWD based, lifted (ex.: VW Tiguan)
  • Soft-roaders: higher ground clearance, AWD (ex.: VW Touareg)
  • Off-roaders: body-on-frame, high ground clearance, 4WD (ex.: VW Amarok)
The first group is totally useless, the second is IMO a bad compromise (Audi Quattro All-road and Subaru's I put also in this group as a rather good compromise), and the third group is an extreme that few people need, but at least is useful.

Great points!

I totally agree; if we end up in a situation where most vehicles on the road are CUVs, then suddenly the safety/mass advantage of CUVs disappears. CUVs and SUVs are certainly quite safe (for the occupants) when they're involved in crashes with smaller, lighter vehicles. However if a CUV is involved in a crash with another CUV, that advantage disappears. Furthermore, most CUVs are smaller and lighter than true SUVs, so in a crash involving a CUV and SUV, the CUV is at a disadvantage. Also in a crash involving CUVs and a pickup truck, the CUV will also be at a disadvantage.
 

Gecko

Administrator
Messages
4,721
Reactions
11,283
Where are you guys getting this information from? A lot of it seems whimsical and anecdotal.

This talk about which vehicles crash into others is sort of silly. Most of todays CUVs weigh just as much as comparable SUVs and are actually safer because they have stiffer unibody construction. A 4Runner Limited 4x4 and Highlander Limited AWD are both about about 4,400lbs. The Highlander crash tests better. Explorer weighs about 4,500lbs. Pilot is 4,200lbs. The Mercedes GL is about 5,500lbs and the Lexus GX is about 5,200. The reality is that CUVs crash test better because they have stronger, more rigid chasses through design - unibody. While the BOF architecture is more durable off road, where the frame can take significant abuse and isolate much of that stress from the cab, this design is not necessarily safer than unibody when it comes to structural soundness in a crash.

Getting in a wreck in a truck is a whole different ballgame when you have so little weight over the rear wheels. For the record, most of the full size pickups just scored poorly on the front overlap crash tests.

If we "end up in a situation where most vehicles on the road are CUVs" then I can tell you I don't want to be in a sedan or coupe when we talk about crashes and accidents.

FWD-biased AWD entry level CUVs are quickly becoming America's replacement for the midsize sedan, and they fill the void pretty well for a lot of people. More space and ease of load-in/load-out for gear? Higher seating positions for easier ingress/egress? AWD traction for bad weather or mild off-roading? Still relatively fuel efficient? Those are legitimate shopping priorities for a lot of people and not just "following a trend." This is looking like a trend in sales data because gas is cheap, making the tradeoff between things like cargo capacity, AWD, high seating position vs. the gas savings of a sedan much less significant.

It's pretty hard to beat that combination with what you can get in a CR-V, Rav4, Forester or CX-5 right now. "Totally useless" - please elaborate...?

Also curious to know how Highlanders, Pathfinders, Explorers, etc. are a "bad compromise"?
 
Last edited:

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
Where are you guys getting this information from? A lot of it seems whimsical and anecdotal.

This talk about which vehicles crash into others is sort of silly. Most of todays CUVs weigh just as much as comparable SUVs and are actually safer because they have stiffer unibody construction. A 4Runner Limited 4x4 and Highlander Limited AWD are both about about 4,400lbs. The Highlander crash tests better. Explorer weighs about 4,500lbs. Pilot is 4,200lbs. The Mercedes GL is about 5,500lbs and the Lexus GX is about 5,200. The reality is that CUVs crash test better because they have stronger, more rigid chasses through design - unibody. While the BOF architecture is more durable off road, where the frame can take significant abuse and isolate much of that stress from the cab, this design is not necessarily safer than unibody when it comes to structural soundness in a crash.

Getting in a wreck in a truck is a whole different ballgame when you have so little weight over the rear wheels. For the record, most of the full size pickups just scored poorly on the front overlap crash tests.

If we "end up in a situation where most vehicles on the road are CUVs" then I can tell you I don't want to be in a sedan or coupe when we talk about crashes and accidents.

FWD-biased AWD entry level CUVs are quickly becoming America's replacement for the midsize sedan, and they fill the void pretty well for a lot of people. More space and ease of load-in/load-out for gear? Higher seating positions for easier ingress/egress? AWD traction for bad weather or mild off-roading? Still relatively fuel efficient? Those are legitimate shopping priorities for a lot of people and not just "following a trend." This is looking like a trend in sales data because gas is cheap, making the tradeoff between things like cargo capacity, AWD, high seating position vs. the gas savings of a sedan much less significant.

It's pretty hard to beat that combination with what you can get in a CR-V, Rav4, Forester or CX-5 right now. "Totally useless" - please elaborate...?

Also curious to know how Highlanders, Pathfinders, Explorers, etc. are a "bad compromise"?

I can't speak for anyone else, so this is only my view/opinion here.

First off, yes much of what I am saying is anecdotal. But how can it be otherwise? For example, there have never been any bodies or organizations that have ever done comprehensive multi-vehicle collision tests, especially involving smaller CUVs vs bigger CUVs/SUVS/trucks. Yet much of this is simply common sense and simple physics. A vehicle with more mass will fare better in almost every case in a collision involving a vehicle of lower mass. Also regarding accidents, I will say this. I have gained quite a lot of anecdotal evidence, yet evidence that to me is very consistent. Due to lack of comprehensive multi-vehicle collision data as I noted above, this anecdotal evidence and experience is the best I personally have to judge these vehicles on. So going on, in my area, there are a lot of trucks, large SUVs, and CUVs out on the road. Over the years I've seen a variety of accidents, either in person or on the news. By pure statistics, most accidents have involved trucks, SUVs, or CUVs since they are the majority of vehicles on the roads locally. All accidents that I've seen involving a truck/SUV/CUV and a car, the car has lost every single time. There have been some tests done on this matter, combined with common sense this is quite obvious. However I've seen a pattern of anecdotal evidence for less obvious cases. Accidents involving trucks/body-on-frame SUVs and CUVs, whether they're smaller CUVs or midsize/large CUVs. Now in those local accidents, virtually every time, the CUV lost to the truck/body-on-frame SUV. Static crash tests are one thing, and we're well aware of test results for these various vehicles. Dynamic real-world accidents with two or more vehicles involved is an entirely different matter. Also, I've seen truck/body-on-frame SUVs in accidents with minivans, and much of the time the minivan lost in such accidents. I've even seen truck vs truck accidents, or truck vs body-on-frame SUV accidents, and interestingly enough in those accidents generally it was a draw, with both vehicles sustaining roughly similar amounts of damage/injury. Now putting accidents aside for a minute, from purely a question of strength, yes the ladder frames of body-on-frame SUVs and real trucks are definitely stronger than unibody frames. This cannot be denied, when talking purely about strength. In terms of crash worthiness, as I already said, static tests are one thing, but real world accidents are a whole other story. From my anecdotal, but consistent personal observations, yes ladder frames are definitely stronger in real-world crashes and accidents than unibody frames.

A few more things to consider. No comprehensive tests have ever been done conclusively showing that a higher seating position guarantees easier ingress/egress. As an enthusiast and partially related to work, I often sit in and drive a variety of vehicles. I'm also fairly tall, and for me personally, I have found mixed experiences in terms of ingress/egress in low seating position vehicles vs high seating position vehicles. Some low seating position vehicles for me present difficult ingress/egress, while others are actually quite comfortable for my tall stature. Likewise, some high seating position vehicles present comfortable ingress/egress personally, while others are uncomfortable in that regard. To give some examples, ingress/egress for me is easier in a Camry than it is in vehicles like a Tahoe, Suburban, Ram, Silverado, or Odyssey, all vehicles with a higher seating position than the Camry. Mileage may vary obviously depending on one's body structure, height and weight, but these are my personal views.

Regarding weights, well you picked some of the heaviest CUVs on the market, including the extreme example of the Benz GL, which is a very large, full-size luxury CUV. I'd also like to throw in trucks. The average half-ton full size pickup weights about 4400-4500 lbs curb weight. But wait, there are a ton of heavy duty variants for pickups as well, including 3/4 ton and 1 ton variants. There are a lot of those pickups on the roads as well. For those heavy duty pickups, curb weight jumps up quickly to around 5300-5400 lbs, and continues to climb for the top heavy duty models at around 6000lbs curb weight or more. Those top heavy duty models, in terms of physical mass, that is simply no match for ANY CUV, including a Benz GL.

Regarding compromises, some compromises in my opinion are certainly better than others. When looking at midsize CUVs like the Pathfinder, Murano or Highlander, they cost noticeably more than a Quest or a Sienna. A Dodge Durango costs WAY more than a Dodge Caravan. The Dodge Journey is smaller, so doesn't apply. The notable exception is Honda where an Odyssey or Pilot cost about the same. For people looking for serious cargo and passenger hauling ability, or serious passenger/cargo flexibility, YES, a Highlander or Pathfinder/Murano is a bad compromise compared to a Quest or a Sienna. A Sienna or Quest gives more passenger/cargo flexibility while costing thousands less than a Pathfinder/Murano or Highlander. The Sienna uniquely even offers AWD, so the Highlander no longer has that advantage. So then, what are the actual, objective advantages of a Pathfinder/Murano over a Quest? Slightly higher ground clearance and seating position, AWD, and different styling. How about the Highlander versus Sienna? Slightly higher ground clearance, different styling, and that's pretty much it. Yet the Pathfinder, Murano and Highlander sell much better than the Quest or Sienna. Why is that I wonder. Personally I think in this situation, styling is a huge reason why, and directly related to styling, how you are perceived by others when driving a CUV/crossover versus a minivan. Perception is huge for a lot of people, and even with some objective disadvantages, sales figures clearly show more people would rather drive a less flexible, more expensive midsize crossover than a minivan. Since crossovers are such a big trend today, perception is very clear, and the perception further helps fuel the crossover trend. Yes, it is factually a trend, a market trend on a historical timeline. There is also the fact that midsize CUVs are a much more popular target for theft than minivans.

Now very large CUVs are still relatively rare in the market, so I won't discuss those that much.

Lastly, let me touch on the "meat" of the market, compact and sub-compact entry-level CUVs, which make up the vast majority of CUV sales worldwide today. Sub-compact CUVs like the HV-R, Juke, etc. have curb weights in the 2900-3000 lb range. Compact CUVs, which specifically right now are the biggest sellers in the CUV segment, models like the Escape, CR-V, Rav4, etc. typically have curb weights in the 3300-3400 lb range. So factually, the sub-compact CUVs weight a bit more than compact cars like Civic and Corolla, and the compact CUVs weight about the same as typical midsize sedans. So in terms of safety from a physics point of view in terms of mass, they are NOT safer than compact or midsize cars. Now yes, these CUVs offer AWD, a higher seating position, and more flexible cargo capability. However in some cases legroom and passenger room is worse than compact and midsize cars. AWD is definitely a clear advantage over cars, but various comparisons and tests have shown that the AWD systems on these sub-compact and compact CUVs are varying degrees of mediocre to average. In real world conditions, they don't provide much of an improvement from FWD cars. Now we come to perception, where there's a big gap. Today, there is definitely a clear perception difference among the average consumer between compact and midsize cars, and sub-compact and compact CUVs. The CUVs are perceived to be safer, although the factual evidence is mixed and inconclusive in terms of whether they actually are. If involved in an accident with a heavier vehicle, they are absolutely not any safer than a compact or midsize car. Also markedly, today CUVs are simply perceived by many as "better" than cars, although factually this is highly subjective and debatable.

Another interesting point is cost. Base prices for pickup trucks are quite low, cheaper than many CUVs out the market today. Of course, trucks have a different perception than CUVs. To be fair, they also do have a different driving feel.

Here's one anecdotal story. There's a lady who lives in my area, and she drives a new Rav4. She is a very short lady, only about 5 feet tall or so. I've seen her get in and out of her Rav4 multiple times, and it seems like a struggle, because personally she seems too short to have comfortable ingress/egress in that vehicle. Not even getting into the cargo load-in/load-out issues that she may encounter. So why then does she drive a Rav4, rather than something like a Corolla or Camry? I can't say for sure, since I don't know her nor talk to her. Even when I've seen her behind the wheel, she seems to have a struggle in terms of sightlines out of the windows due to her very short height. Yet I've seen a few times with her behind the wheel, her having a very proud look. So if I had to guess, she likely drives it purely due to the perception that vehicle has. It's certainly not for comfort or ease-of-use reasons.

From my own point of view, models like the CR-V, Forester, Rav4 or CX-5 are simply not in the running at all, if I was hypothetically looking at a new vehicle. As a tall man, they are too cramped, and the driving/seating positions are too uncomfortable for me. I find their interiors a bit too tight, and also the engine choices lacking. I'm obviously not the average consumer, but just some food for thought.

Now I have nothing against people with actual needs. CUVs offer a compromise of small amounts of ground clearance, AWD, cargo flexibility, higher seating position, decent fuel economy. Nor am I judging all of those who buy CUVs.

I simply go back to my original point; it is my hypothesis that not all, but many CUV buyers simply buy CUVs purely due to perception/the market trend and the styling of them. Just like with ANY automotive market trend in history, there are some who buy trendy vehicles for legitimate needs/uses. At the same time, there are many who buy trendy vehicles simply because they're trendy. Do I have any proof? Nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but nothing more exists. There has never been, and likely never will be a vast, comprehensive study of auto consumers regarding their priorities and reasons for buying CUVs vs other types of vehicles. Even if such a study was done, you could never guarantee the honesty of the responses from people.
 
Last edited:

Dreski

Fan
Messages
111
Reactions
86
CT needs to have similar proportions to the upcoming 2017 Suby hatch. Leave this tall lumpy crossover segment to the UH. CT sells well enough, its just missing crucial options in the drivetrain and 4WD offering. The smallest model needs to stay like a small hatch car not no shrunken rav4.