Three-Row Lexus RX to Debut Next Year?

[krew]

krew

Autoblog drops a new rumor about a three-row seven-seat crossover arriving in 2016.

View the original article post

 

[RAL]

I wonder if a third row RX will come in order to fill the time-gap before the TX? With GX sales surging, I would tend to think not.

 

[Adrian de Leon]

I Think a 3 row cross over should just be a model on its own. For a couple of reasons.
1. Having a 3 row RX wouldn't be very comfortable space wise, the third row would practically be like the GX in trunk space
2. Having an individual model can bring even more revenue to lexus
3. (Hopefully) that it was the TX is for. The full size luxury crossover to fully compete with the GLS (going by the new Mercedes naming system)

 

[Tinhinnh]

3rows is achievable since its now same length as Highlander.

 

[RCF Grandpa]

What is the TX? I've never heard of it. Ever mentioned on this site?

 

[corradoMR2]

hmmm, with the raked rear roofline and glass, I don't see how a usable third row will fit in the 2-row '16 RX's body without banging one's head on the rear glass. Although it shares the same wheelbase and a 1.4 inch longer length overt the Highlander, the boxy and taller rear of the Highlander permits the third row well. The RX's second row is already near the end of the roofline:

With this said, it would have to be a totally new boxier rear in line with the would-be competitors QX60, MDX, XC90, etc. It may be based on the same RX/Highlander platform but with such a significant design change, it would make more sense to call it the already-registered TX. Another possibility is a 3-4 inch stretched wheelbase of the RX (to accommodate the third row while keeping the same raked rear, and call it "RX 350 L".

 

[Black Dynamite]

I personally wouldn't make a 3-row RX
BD

 

[Tinhinnh]

I personally wouldn't make a 3-row RX
BD

Its useless: you use it once a year, adds weight/cost.

 

[CIF]

Personally I feel it would be a better decision to have a so-called TX, a totally new model, as opposed to a 3-row RX, extended or not. I'm just not sure that adding a 3rd row to the RX is a good idea, especially given the point mentioned by krew about the GX. I think there should be a much larger car-based 3-row crossover Lexus model. That way, it would not step on the toes of the RX or GX. In theory then, Lexus would continue to have a clearly differentiated SUV/crossover lineup with the NX, RX, GX, LX, and a supposed 'TX'.

The only question then would be, what platform would they use for such a new model? An extended version of Toyota's FWD midsize platform? Even using the Highlander's chassis, that's still not enough size to make a luxury 3-row crossover that's comfortable for occupants in all 3 rows.

 

[Tinhinnh]

TX is essentially replacing the GX, so thats gone. Just use the Sienna chassis for the TX - perfect L+Width

 

[CIF]

TX is essentially replacing the GX, so thats gone. Just use the Sienna chassis for the TX - perfect L+Width

Is this confirmed information about the GX? The GX since the mid-cycle refresh has been selling very well. Profit margins are also very high on the GX. It would not make much financial sense to get rid of the GX. The GX also serves a clearly differentiated purpose in the lineup and in the market versus what a supposed TX would serve.

The Sienna chassis, sure, I mean that's essentially a stretched MC platform; which is what the Avalon and Highlander use. Even so I'm not convinced that would be enough. Ever sat in the 3rd row of the Sienna? I'm a fairly tall guy, and it's not the most comfortable place to be. It's not terrible, but I don't think it's worthy of being a 3rd row in a luxury crossover. Lexus already has two SUVs with so-so 3rd rows; the LX and GX, although they're very multi-purpose vehicles, rather than simple people-haulers. I think for a TX to make sense in the lineup, it would have to offer the most comfortable 3rd-row seating of any existing Toyota or Lexus in North America, if not the entire Toyota/Lexus global lineups. It would have to be something at least as good as Toyota's Alphard or Vellfire luxury vans, if not even more extended than that. I'm thinking it would have to be about the length of a super-long-wheelbase Toyota HiAce van.

 

[Tinhinnh]

GX has been selling better but thats mostly b/c of deep incentives. I don't think a 3 row SUV is a priority but if they need one, how about a rebadge Sequoia? with lexus stying of course.

 

[Levi]

The TX should be an all new model, based on LS. It should be a crossover like the German cars, not an offroader, and compete against X7 with the same luxury and turbo V6 and V8 engines and hybrid. RWD based it should be.

 

[CIF]

GX has been selling better but thats mostly b/c of deep incentives. I don't think a 3 row SUV is a priority but if they need one, how about a rebadge Sequoia? with lexus stying of course.

Really? Do you have proof of this? The reason I ask is that all information I have heard about the refreshed GX selling better mentions the updated styling as well as the lower base price as the main reasons for it selling better. Considering the base price was lowered, and profit margins are very high on the GX (this is a fact), how could there be deep incentives? I'm genuinely curious.

The TX should be an all new model, based on LS. It should be a crossover like the German cars, not an offroader, and compete against X7 with the same luxury and turbo V6 and V8 engines and hybrid. RWD based it should be.

Perhaps, but being LS-based would make it fairly expensive.

 

[mwyf]

It's the second time I heard about this in two days. It's plausible but the roofline isn't very practical for a car with three rows.
Whilst many are talking about the TX, I remain sceptical. "TX" was indeed trademarked by Toyota end of 2010. But it was only trademarked in North America; not in Canada, not in the EU, not in UK and not in Australia. If Lexus had truly planned make a seven-seater SUV, I doubt it'd be available strictly in the US. I'm sure there's potential in this segment worldwide. (Although admittedly, the HS was an example of N.Am and JP only.) Plus, having looked at the trademark database records, it seems like Lexus usually trademarks the specific model name before registering the 'line' (pardon my poor use of terminology). Take the recent LC500/h trademark as an example. Toyota/Lexus didn't trademark "LC" beforehand. They went straight in, and filed "LC500" and "LC500h".
I think this whole thing was just picked up thrown around by Automotive News, 3 years late in 2013.
I'm all pro Lexus three-row SUV, but for now, I can't bring myself to believing in the TX nameplate.
I feel like I will be hated. And when/if I'm proven wrong, I'll be embarrassed - but I'll put my hand on my heart and say, "I was wrong."

 

[mwyf]

What is the TX? I've never heard of it. Ever mentioned on this site?

First report of the TX
https://lexusenthusiast.com/2013/07/30/lexus-to-cancel-the-gx-in-2016-replace-with-seven-seat-crossover/

 

[Lasse J. Nordvik]

What is the TX? I've never heard of it. Ever mentioned on this site?

The TX is a long rumoured hypothetical crossover that would be larger than the RX and either replace or excist alongside the GX.

 

[Tinhinnh]

TX would be a big hit in the lone star state *w*

 

[Tinhinnh]

GX has been selling better but thats mostly b/c of deep incentives. I don't think a 3 row SUV is a priority but if they need one, how about a rebadge Sequoia? with lexus stying of course.

Really? Do you have proof of this? The reason I ask is that all information I have heard about the refreshed GX selling better mentions the updated styling as well as the lower base price as the main reasons for it selling better. Considering the base price was lowered, and profit margins are very high on the GX (this is a fact), how could there be deep incentives? I'm genuinely curious.

The TX should be an all new model, based on LS. It should be a crossover like the German cars, not an offroader, and compete against X7 with the same luxury and turbo V6 and V8 engines and hybrid. RWD based it should be.

Perhaps, but being LS-based would make it fairly expensive.

Indeed, we don't need another LX-priced SUV.

 

[Tragic Bronson]

So Jalopnik weighs in on the issue, for who knows why because it isn't a Miata

http://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-lexus-rx-was-the-biggest-loser-in-new-yor-1696229064