2016 Lexus RX Now Arriving at USA Dealerships

[IS-SV]

Makes real world sense and that's what I always thought but side by side the car with the 20" was taller. I'm not the only one noticing the height issue (tires irrelevant here). Check out the first customer review. http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/2016/suv/review/

.

NOT correct. No "real world sense", because lower profile tires with the 20's keep ride height same for 18" and 20" wheel versions of the new RX.

To summarize, if you are having a height issue it's not because of the optional 20's.

 

[mmcartalk]

Makes real world sense and that's what I always thought but side by side the car with the 20" was taller. I'm not the only one noticing the height issue (tires irrelevant here). Check out the first customer review.

In general, the larger the wheel, the lower-profile the tire is to compensate for the added wheel height. (That's one reason why large wheels tend to ride stiffer).

 

[abraxas]

Specs don't lie and neither does my eyesight. Have you compared the two? I don't care if it has training wheels, it sits a couple of inches higher than the 2015. The car is harder to get in and out of for shorter people. Here's the specs if anyone is interested.

http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/2015/features-specs/

http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/2016/suv/features-specs/

 

[IS-SV]

In general, the larger the wheel, the lower-profile the tire is to compensate for the added wheel height. (That's one reason why large wheels tend to ride stiffer).

Generalizations should include the better steering response and handling too.

 

[abraxas]

In general, the larger the wheel, the lower-profile the tire is to compensate for the added wheel height. (That's one reason why large wheels tend to ride stiffer).

I understand, lower profile=less sidewall height. Then what would make the one car higher than the other, both being the new 2016? I should have taken a picture had I known it was gonna be an issue.

 

[IS-SV]

Specs don't lie and neither does my eyesight. Have you compared the two? I don't care if it has training wheels, it sits a couple of inches higher than the 2015. The car is harder to get in and out of for shorter people. Here's the specs if anyone is interested.

http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/2015/features-specs/

http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/2016/suv/features-specs/

On the topic of 20's versus 18's and impact on ride height, not applicable.
Specs don't lie and neither does my educated eyesight. I have compared the 2 tire setups.

Because the Lexus 2016 RX tire sizing is this:

18: 235-65-18
20 235-55-20 (the difference is only 0.15")

. In short, you started in posts above with incorrect assumptions about 18 versus 20 inch wheels impacting ride height.
. Now you are changing to a comparison of 2013/2015 versus 2016 RX ride height, different subject.

 

[IS-SV]

I understand, lower profile=less sidewall height. Then what would make the one car higher than the other, both being the new 2016? I should have taken a picture had I known it was gonna be an issue.

Good question (and a question that often comes up with people dealing with custom wheels too).

The answer is a common visual perception when going to larger wheel size. (In this case we are talking about 18" versus 20" on new RX) That's why so many cars with upsized custom wheels end up being lowered, often mainly for appearance reasons.

The reason is the relationship of sidewall height versus wheel gap. In the case of the 20" wheel, the sidewall height is shorter (verus the 18" wheel setup) making it appear that the wheel gap is larger or that the vehicle appears to be more "jacked-up". In reality with proper tire sizing the wheel gap is the same, but visually it doesn't look that way. So the relationship of sidewall height to wheel gap is altered in a visually negative way. I hope that explanation helps.

 

[mmcartalk]

It also cost $10,000 more than the one we tested. These cars are pricey too.

Top-level RX models are anything but inexpensive. Hybrid and/or F-Sport models with big option-packages can run over 60K. On the version I did a full-review on, though (a run-of-the-mill RX350, with few options, listing for 45K), I definitely felt it was worth what Lexus was asking for it.

 

[CIF]

4. Rear cabin space behind the rear seats is smaller. It's quite a bit less than our 2013 in width, a bit less front to back. Wish I had a tape with me to take measurements. Where that roomy rear area went is anyone's guess.

5. Leg room for the rear seat is confined even though the length of the car was increased.

These two points have me really puzzled .

This directly contradicts every other review I've seen, from both media outlets and individuals. Can anyone else that has examined the 2016 RX interior chime in here?

I thought that for sure rear seat legroom had significantly improved, and had achieved an almost ES-level of rear seat room. I also distinctly remember Lexus saying that cargo room has been improved.

The overall interior volume remains the same for the 2016 RX compared to the 2015 model, and Lexus says that rear cargo room is comparable to the 2015 model. Did you check if the height of the rear cargo area was bigger or smaller?

If overall interior volume is the same as the old model, and Lexus says rear seat legroom improved, then that may explain slightly smaller cargo room in the rear.

 

[mmcartalk]

These two points have me really puzzled .

Can anyone else that has examined the 2016 RX interior chime in here?

Though I didn't actually measure them physically in my recent 2016 RX review, one (possible) reason for less head/knee/foot room is the physical size of the seats themselves. These new RX seats were designed for American-sized frames, with large cushions, backs, and frames underneath. Large seats and thick cushions like that will sometimes take up some of the physical space that would otherwise be available for legs, knees, feet, cargo, and even heads.

An additional factor with the two front seats that is not a "maybe" but a definite, is that the very wide center console sticks out enough on both sides to significantly affect both the driver and front-passenger knee room. Your knee (or the side of your leg) tends to rest on the protruding rim of the console (I mentioned this in an earlier post). This is something you don't really need a tape-measure for.....you can simply sit down in the front seat and see for yourself.

If overall interior volume is the same as the old model, and Lexus says rear seat legroom improved, then that may explain slightly smaller cargo room in the rear.

All else equal (as in total interior volume), the shape of the roofline can significantly affect not only affect total cargo space, but usable cargo space as well. Even with the back seat folded down, it may do little good, for example, to try and carry home a new set of dresser-drawers from the furniture store if the hatch-lid won't close all the way down on it because it's angled or raked too much. In a case like that, you just have to improvise the best you can, and maybe tie the lid down with a length of cord or rope (I had to do that a couple of times even with my space-efficient Outback).

 

[IS-SV]

A few puzzling points for sure..

And reduced/lack of rear leg room and rear cargo room (versus last gen RX) will be a rare complaint, I've seen both. More likely to hear comments about lack of 3rd row.

 

[abraxas]

These two points have me really puzzled .

This directly contradicts every other review I've seen, from both media outlets and individuals. Can anyone else that has examined the 2016 RX interior chime in here?

I thought that for sure rear seat legroom had significantly improved, and had achieved an almost ES-level of rear seat room. I also distinctly remember Lexus saying that cargo room has been improved.

The overall interior volume remains the same for the 2016 RX compared to the 2015 model, and Lexus says that rear cargo room is comparable to the 2015 model. Did you check if the height of the rear cargo area was bigger or smaller?

If overall interior volume is the same as the old model, and Lexus says rear seat legroom improved, then that may explain slightly smaller cargo room in the rear.

Recommend you drive and inspect one carefully. The 2016 cargo space is definately smaller. 2015 CARGO CAPACITY, ALL SEATS IN PLACE = 40 c.f.

2016 CARGO CAPACITY, ALL SEATS IN PLACE = 18.4 c.f. 46% of the 2016, argggggghhhhh.

That and the little touch's like the lack of a sliding tray in the smaller storage space (but larger console) is a deal killer for us.

The rear leg room has not improved if the front seats are all the way back. You can cheat and pull your driver's seat up a bit. Another disappointment for me as I was looking for improvement in that area. Front leg room seems to have increased another inch or so. Again, you need to test drive one. Also, if you have an old RX350, park it in the adjacent space next to the 2016, pop the rear cargo hatch and have a lookie-see.

 

[abraxas]

And reduced/lack of rear leg room and rear cargo room (versus last gen RX) will be a rare complaint, I've seen both. More likely to hear comments about lack of 3rd row.

You'll hear the complaints. When Lexus has taken away something that folks liked and gotten used to, they will be upset. Based on the hype I was ready to take the plunge. Found out it's all hat, no cattle.

3rd row seats are useless, a waste of space, unless you're constantly toting very young kids. Like big rims/tires, I guess manufacturers count on X amount of sucker bets who think this stuff is cool and will buy into it.

 

[abraxas]

Though I didn't actually measure them physically in my recent 2016 RX review, one (possible) reason for less head/knee/foot room is the physical size of the seats themselves. These new RX seats were designed for American-sized frames, with large cushions, backs, and frames underneath. Large seats and thick cushions like that will sometimes take up some of the physical space that would otherwise be available for legs, knees, feet, cargo, and even heads..........

Excellent explanation of where all that new space went to.

Did you notice the front seats' knee indentions, molded into each side of center in the front seat back panels? Now.....why would Lexus need or want to do that? For those who haven't test driven one, if sitting in the rear seats and perched a bit high looking down the back of the front seats the rear seat panels have the profile of a seagull. Perhaps it buys 1/2" of knee room for tall passengers?

 

[abraxas]

Ran out of edit time. Meant to say.....

2016 CARGO CAPACITY, ALL SEATS IN PLACE = 18.4 c.f. 46% of what the 2015 has. argggggghhhhh...

 

[mmcartalk]

Excellent explanation of where all that new space went to.

Thanks, but it obviously doesn't cover all of the explanation...it is just one of several factors. One would probably have to be a design-engineer to know and/or explain all of the details.

Did you notice the front seats' knee indentions, molded into each side of center in the front seat back panels? Now.....why would Lexus need or want to do that? For those who haven't test driven one, if sitting in the rear seats and perched a bit high looking down the back of the front seats the rear seat panels have the profile of a seagull. Perhaps it buys 1/2" of knee room for tall passengers? [/QUOTE]

I've seen indentations like that in a couple of other newer vehicles...not just the RX.

 

[mmcartalk]

Ran out of edit time.

Yes, I agree. IMO, 30 minutes is not enough....but that's up to the staff and those who program the LE software.

Meant to say.....

2016 CARGO CAPACITY, ALL SEATS IN PLACE = 18.4 c.f. 46% of what the 2015 has. argggggghhhhh...

Was that total room, though, or usable room? Like I mentioned earlier, there often is a difference. I agree seats alone wouldn't account for all of it.

 

[IS-SV]

Ran out of edit time. Meant to say.....

2016 CARGO CAPACITY, ALL SEATS IN PLACE = 18.4 c.f. 46% of what the 2015 has. argggggghhhhh...

I doubt that is a comparable figure and below is why I think so:

The 2016 18.4 cf is with cargo cover on and luggage no higher than rear seat back level.

The older 2015 number is much larger because it includes luggage capacity above rear seat back height level, therefore blocking rear vision.

That would not be apples to apples comparison. I've seen measurements published both ways with SUV's, not uncommon.

 

[mmcartalk]

Anyone on the forum own one yet? (I wouldn't be surprised, as fast as it's selling). Let's hear from someone with accumulating, day-to-day experience.

 

[abraxas]

Yes, I agree. IMO, 30 minutes is not enough....but that's up to the staff and those who program the LE software.
Was that total room, though, or usable room? Like I mentioned earlier, there often is a difference. I agree seats alone wouldn't account for all of it.

One of the car Spec's. The other cargo spec is - 2015 MAXIMUM CARGO CAPACITY 80.3 cu. ft.

2016 MAXIMUM CARGO CAPACITY 56.3 cu. ft.

Huge cut. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me! Parking my 2013 next to a 2016, popping the hatchbacks was a blessing for comparison. Like I said, the reduction in width was very noticeable and quite unfortunate.

For those who don't know any better the 2016 may be quite appealing and sell well.