Lexus LF-1 Limitless Concept Megathread [LF Coming in 2023?]

[Levi]

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

 

[Gecko]

There is a very high possibility of consolidation of Prado and 4Runner, seeing how they went for a single international model with the Camry. Then a new GX based on this common BoF SUV could see significant cost reduction.

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

LF-1 will not ever replace LX. Lexus made it clear that this was an addition to their flagship portfolio alongside LS, LX, LC.

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been. In many global markets, like the Middle East and others, LX is the #1 selling Lexus model. LX outsells the LS worldwide - it is one of the most important global models, especially as SUV craze continues. LX's place as the Lexus flagship is becoming even more important.

Totally agree about Prado, 4Runner and GX consolidating to one model - only makes sense.

 

[Gecko]

Toyota has improved its interior quality/comfort/design, that an LX version of the Land Cruiser has not much more to offer in terms of differentiation, other than Lexus design, which is not necessarily more luxurious or better. So if the body-on-frame SUV LX is replaced by a uni-body CUV LS, there is no loss, on the contrary the LX will really have more comfort and luxury to offer than the Land Cruiser.

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

 

[ssun30]

Lexus stated recently that long term, the LX is the one model that will remain BOF - linked to Land Cruiser as it has always been.

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

Sure the luxury SUV segment has a capacity of 2k units per month (US numbers only) for a competent carmaker, using the GLS as a reference point. Since these are very high margin products, the BOF LX only needs like 500 monthly to remain a profitable program (as it is now) with the rest 1500 coming from the LF-1. The market is there for a BOF LX; it is even more justifiable than the LS. You are entirely right about that.

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

This. I need to check on the LX some day. Still does not justify a ¥100k premium over even the limited edition LC, but that's light-years ahead of the more expensive BMW X5 xDrive 50i and GLS450.

 

[Gecko]

What would be the differentiation between the LX and LF-1, other than BOF vs unibody, which could justify their decision to split the luxury crossover market between two models?

But would the bean counters at Aichi argue that they could do the same by making the LF-1 only? Remember those guys can terminate programs that Lexus itself really wants unless Akio steps in. As long as the LX name is carried over, the big oil people in Middle East and Russia will keep buying it. Just like their american counterparts, they don't get their LX dirty either. They have fancier toys to play with if they do off-roading at all.

Part of what makes LX and GX so attractive is that they are insanely profitable because they use 80% Land Cruiser 200 and Land Cruiser Prado hardware with wood and leather added - Lexus has talked candidly about this. There is no way a GA-L based CUV can have such hefty margins at this point. Lexus will not just walk away from that profit. There are three generations of LX heritage as well, and completely changing it to a two row, high performance CUV would be total strategy shift and major turnoff for buyers. The people who buy LXs are quite like the people who buy Land Cruisers - they buy them because they know how dependable they are, they drive them for 12 years, put 150-200k miles on them, and then turn it over to their children or grand children.

LF-1's competitive set is Cayenne, Range Rover Sport, maybe the X5. LX competitive set is the Escalade and QX80, and on the outer edges, Mercedes GLS and Range Rover. These are two totally different buyer groups, which is why Lexus talked about positioning LF-1 alongside the LX instead of replacing it. Lexus is very intentional with their words in press releases for flagship vehicles.

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

 

[krew]

GX is becoming something they couldn't easily let go; sales speak for themselves. If anything, the BoF LX needs to make way for the Unibody LF-1. I've always believed the LF-1 will become the new LX. The point is Lexus could not leave a hole between RX and LX because every crossover segment counts (unlike the sedan market where they can leave a hole between ES and LS).

I think you could have made the "Is it really worth it?" argument with the GX because the RX is so dominant, but the LX is on another level entirely. And to your first point, BOF vs unibody is a very big deal that fundamentally changes almost everything about the vehicle - packaging, weight, driving dynamics, powertrain options, design, etc. The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

Both the LF-1 and LX are vehicles that can stand on their own without stepping on each other's toes. I believe the current high-end luxury focus of Lexus is a long-term plan that's reshaping the brand, and four separate flagships fits very well with that strategy.

 

[maiaramdan]

@Gecko, I am honestly with Levi & ssun30
I feel the Land Cruiser is prisoned under LX shadow, if you see the history "before LX450" the Land Cruiser was always compared to the Range Rover and in case LX switches to the unibody, thist will again makes the Land Cruiser enters the Top lux. Market noting that until the previous LX it was not a Lexus and sold in Japan under Toyota Land Cruiser Cygnus


Regarding the GX, Prado, 4-Runner, Fortuner, Innova, Tacoma, Hi-Lux

This maybe the most profitable chassis, Toyota already is working in a BOF based on the new TNGA and we may see all of them got renewed and SUV is not the same case as the sedan, so if they dropped the international Camry and maybe dropping the international next Corolla, that not meant that they will drop also either Prado or 4-Runner, I see it the 180 degrees situation, as a Toyota executive said that they are in the 90th where you can put more than one car in the same category.

 

[Levi]

Have you been in both recently? There is a massive difference between Land Cruiser and LX interior - massive. If anything, Land Cruiser doesn't quite feel right for it's $85k price point, but LX feels every bit of $90k.

That is not very fair. Take the pre-facelift Land Cruiser top spec and the pre-facelift LX, and the difference is almost nothing. The last facelift of the LX is also way more extensive than what the last Land Cruiser got. The LX has every exterior panel except doors and roof, new. Also in addition to a completely new dashboard with new control buttons, it has new door interior panels. Look at the difference between Land Cruiser GX (UN, military, low-spec,...) and top spec, the difference is huge.

Your price justification also shows that the margin of the LX is not necessarily higher, if it can justify its price but not the Land Cruiser. Imagine how overpriced a Land Cruiser GX is! Or the Land Cruiser 70 for that matter.

 

[ssun30]

The people who buy LXs like the rugged, trucky, solid feeling that is provided by the BOF architecture. Keep in mind the average OTD price of an LX is around $100k, so that buyer has already passed up almost every other SUV in the market short of ultra lux and exotic brands... They know what they want.

This is a great point. If lux-SUV buyers base their purchase decisions purely on comfort, handling, or speed, then the LX should have no chance since it does a lot of things worse than cheaper unibody competitors. I guess my 'anti-LX' mentality is because of my inability to comprehend the thought process of LX buyers. Also the exorbitant price they charge for the LX570 in China didn't help my perceptions of it: the base trim is ¥100k ($15k) more expensive than a LS500h Executive or LC500h Structural Blue Limited Edition.

Here's an interesting perspective from my dealership friend on the ridiculous profitability of the LX570. Here in China a lot of the LX570 buyers actually cross-shop the truck with the LS600hL. Strange. These people have already determined that they don't want a RR or GLS, nor a S-Class or 7-Series. These are the top elite customers of the shop, and are willing to pay a big premium for the best they can offer. The LS600hL was very short on supply towards the end of production so LX570 was the only flagship that could be delivered regularly. While the official MSRP of the LX570 is ¥1.4M (USD 230k), the actual OTD price is usually north of ¥1.8M (USD 285k) and some are willing to go over 2M. Even at that price point it is still cheaper than the LS600hL, or a GLS500, or a X5 XDrive 50i though these people really don't care. They buy the LX because it is unique, and is the best Lexus there is. It stays true today: Lexus dealers already need to offer deals on the LS500h to sell them, while the LX still carries a mark-up (although at a more reasonable scale now).

So selling one LX570 here is equivalent to selling fifty super low margin ES200s, and salespeople get a hefty commission for the job. I find the LX very comparable to the Toyota Alphard, which too has ridiculous profitability due to uniqueness. Competitors could never convince the top executives to sit in their luxury minivans. These people don't want cargo haulers with fancy leather chairs; they want a purpose-built VIP transport with a silky-smooth V6 and luxury car suspension.

So in the end, the LX is for those who know exactly what they want. The LF-1 is for the more numerous generic luxury buyers.

 

[Ian Schmidt]

Thanks @ssun30, I wasn't familiar with the Alphard since it's not offered in the US. I can totally see the attraction of one in a higher-lux trim in a place where it's normal not to drive the car yourself like China. Or they could make a taller decontented version and go after whoever makes the Sprinter this year (I swear it's got a different badge every year).

 

[maiaramdan]

Ironically we still waiting any BOF SUVs or Trucks based on the new TNGA

I think or we can say I hope they will be the next Tundra / Seqouia combo

By the way
Did anyone see the new 2018 Corolla hatch? , It resemble a lot of LF-Ch lines, especially in the rear even with the rear lights, which as if Toyota made it clear RIP Lexus compact hatch

 

[Joaquin Ruhi]

Buried in an Australian Financial Review interview of Lexus International president Yoshihiro Sawa (featured in a Lexus Enthusiast news story and separate Lexus Lounge thread) is this noteworthy passage:

Lexus has also displayed a much larger and more luxurious "concept" known as the LF-1 Limitless...although Sawa won't confirm as much, a production version is likely to be shown at next year's Tokyo Motor Show.

In other words, the 2019 Tokyo Motor Show's first press day (most likely Wednesday 30 October) could see the first reveal of Lexus' 6th crossover/SUV line.

 

[maiaramdan]

^^^

Wow, I never thought we will see the production LF-1 this fast

 

[mikeavelli]

Some great posts here recently....

Another angle I want to add. If one has a RX and wants to go to the next level and stay with the company, they have no option. There is no RX F. There is no RX Coupe or SUV Coupe from Lexus. They WILL NOT want a GX or LX. So they have to jump ship. The LF-1 would satisfy a growing need of people who love their RX's and want to go up a notch or two. A LC esque SUV hits all the damn marks IMO.

I've put a lot of thought into the LF-1 recently and then thought of our personal situation.

And ladies & gents no matter if you like it or not, the German's SUV coupes sell like hotcakes. In addition they are making M/AMG/S/RS versions of all these SUV's. BMW has pushed over 100,000 X6's a vehicle that has gotten destroyed by the media and most forums. Benz has the two SUV coupes now. BMW two now. Audi's Q8 arrives shortly. These are vehicles people want no matter how they defy logic. Luxury does not equate logic at all, it is a emotional purchase as we all know. Otherwise we would all drive Corollas.

(edit, I also didn't include now the Italians and the Brit with the Stelvo and Levante and F-Pace now offering 550hp plus options)

As for the LX I've talked to quite a few LC and LX owners and I find it's not that the LC owner cannot afford a LX, they just prefer the low key Toyota Badge to the Lexus. Many are longtime LC owners as Gecko stated and they will continue to buy a LC.

It didn't work for VW too well but I recall speaking to Tourag owners about their decision to get it over a Cayenne and it was the same thing. They preferred the low key badge to owning a Porsche.

As for me personally I don't give AF how old the LX is, what is it based on, it's MPG etc. I am head over heels for it. And it drives shockingly nimble for a BOF tank that weighs 6000lbs. It defies physics and truly astounds me. Try driving a G-Wagon or Escalade it constantly reminds you its a BOF.

What I would like to see? More interior options, not just wood (aluminum, piano black wood, black headliner). The red leather option is an amazingly great decision. More cubby space, there isn't much random places to store items. And I really wish the TRD S/C was an option for 500hp.

And the thing is you might get a few LX owners who jump ship to a LF-1 but most will only consider a LX and maybe the LF-1 joins the fleet of vehicles they have. Totally different markets though I assumed priced the same.

 

[Levi]

And ladies & gents no matter if you like it or not, the German's SUV coupes sell like hotcakes. In addition they are making M/AMG/S/RS versions of all these SUV's. BMW has pushed over 100,000 X6's a vehicle that has gotten destroyed by the media and most forums. Benz has the two SUV coupes now. BMW two now. Audi's Q8 arrives shortly. These are vehicles people want no matter how they defy logic. Luxury does not equate logic at all, it is a emotional purchase as we all know. Otherwise we would all drive Corollas.

I agree with you, but I think you and many others do not grasp the 'logic'. What may seem illogic - because CUVs/SUVs are not really best at anything: less space efficient than wagons, bigger than hatches, less space for cargo and people than vans, less (if at all) off-road capable than 4x4, worse handling than sedans, not as good looking a coupes, usually less luxurious than high-end cars (changing with LX, GLS, X7, Bentayga, etc.), not as rugged as utes - turns up to be something very logic: customers WANT a jack off all trades. I think customers themselves are not even aware of that, and that is the reason car manufacturers fail to some extent with their market research, they cannot get the feedback from customers that do not consciously know what they want, they just feel they want it. This 'want' is not well measured, because it is not quantitatively nor qualitatively realized, neither by manufacturers nor by customers.

The Toyota CH-R and Mercedes GLC Coupe sell so well, because that is exactly the type of car that is wanted. I expect the X2 also to be a huge success, though it is overpriced. What killed sedans in Europe at least, where hatches, not CUVs/SUV's, which are not more than taller/lifted hatches, now made to look (rugged). [About rugged I wonder if customers really want that look with plastic cladding.] What killed wagons are CUVs/SUVs, but not because of their greater cargo or passenger space, but rather the slightly higher sitting position, which I would say is more about have the same view height as when a person is standing, rather than "seeing over the car in front". And next is handling: adaptive suspension is solves this 'jack of all trades' issue, but a good compromise of handling (sportiness) and comfort can be achieve with simple hardware: suspension setting and tires (not low profile, but somewhere in the middle, between low and high). [I personally dislike car setting knobs.] Last there is AWD, something I think most customers would want, if money were not an issue (with exception of those that really want only RWD).

It is all about having the feeling of being "free", be able to do "everything", have one car that fits every situation.

 

[mikeavelli]

I agree with you, but I think you and many others do not grasp the 'logic'. What may seem illogic - because CUVs/SUVs are not really best at anything: less space efficient than wagons, bigger than hatches, less space for cargo and people than vans, less (if at all) off-road capable than 4x4, worse handling than sedans, not as good looking a coupes, usually less luxurious than high-end cars (changing with LX, GLS, X7, Bentayga, etc.), not as rugged as utes - turns up to be something very logic: customers WANT a jack off all trades. I think customers themselves are not even aware of that, and that is the reason car manufacturers fail to some extent with their market research, they cannot get the feedback from customers that do not consciously know what they want, they just feel they want it. This 'want' is not well measured, because it is not quantitatively nor qualitatively realized, neither by manufacturers nor by customers.

The Toyota CH-R and Mercedes GLC Coupe sell so well, because that is exactly the type of car that is wanted. I expect the X2 also to be a huge success, though it is overpriced. What killed sedans in Europe at least, where hatches, not CUVs/SUV's, which are not more than taller/lifted hatches, now made to look (rugged). [About rugged I wonder if customers really want that look with plastic cladding.] What killed wagons are CUVs/SUVs, but not because of their greater cargo or passenger space, but rather the slightly higher sitting position, which I would say is more about have the same view height as when a person is standing, rather than "seeing over the car in front". And next is handling: adaptive suspension is solves this 'jack of all trades' issue, but a good compromise of handling (sportiness) and comfor63t can be achieve with simple hardware: suspension setting and tires (not low profile, but somewhere in the middle, between low and high). [I personally dislike car setting knobs.] Last there is AWD, something I think most customers would want, if money were not an issue (with exception of those that really want only RWD).

It is all about having the feeling of being "free", be able to do "everything", have one car that fits every situation.

Let me clarify by logic I mean the SUV Coupes which really limit cargo space for the sake of style. SUV's are a very logical choice, I am not anti-SUV at all.

I for one think a RX "coupe" for example while making no sense for many people will be perfect for others who want a raised stylish vehicle as you stated but don't require tons of cargo room. Unfortunately this isn't an option at Lexus as dealers pushed extremely hard for a 7 seater.

 

[Levi]

Let me clarify by logic I mean the SUV Coupes which really limit cargo space for the sake of style. SUV's are a very logical choice, I am not anti-SUV at all.

I for one think a RX "coupe" for example while making no sense for many people will be perfect for others who want a raised stylish vehicle as you stated but don't require tons of cargo room. Unfortunately this isn't an option at Lexus as dealers pushed extremely hard for a 7 seater.

Just as we have sedans and wagons for more cargo, the same can go for CUVs/SUVs, like GLC Wagon and GLC Coupe. As I said, I do not see evidence (at least in Europe) that CUVs/SUVs are purchased only for cargo purposes, thus the less practical makes sense. Just customers need time to accept and dare buying the less practical version, without fear of resale value etc. Another issue is that many CUVs/SUVs are too tall, van-ish, and would not look good as a 'coupe'.

I wish I could build and sell some cars, bypassing some regulations. They would/should be hits.

 

[spwolf]

Both LX and LC200 are made primarily for different markets than US. For such reasons, they will never stop being what they are, they can do it only better with more variation in trims, stronger engine and better looks.

This is why LX got such extensive redesign, it started outselling LS worldwide 8-9 years ago so they put more money into it.

So it can never make too much sense from US point of view, it is luxury SUV made for the deserts and rough roads, as such it will never truly compete with LF-1.

And Levi, both LC150 and LC200 have poor quality interiors ever since last FMC long time ago. They are poor for the price. Yes, they have gotten better with MMC's, but not that much better. I have driven many when I worked at Toyota. So many. And LC200 does not have a very hard wearing interior. We had problems with seats and wheels ever since start. They were very popular back then, since this is Eastern Europe and people did not complain much, but today, even last updated Prado is simply not good enough for the price. Thankfully buyers get it for go-anywhere ability and legendary reliability.

I am sure that for FMC, they will make it as good as it should have been. Many new Toyota's, especially upcoming ones, have better perceived quality than those two (and yes I am talking about cheap ones).

 

[maiaramdan]

As I always say and a lot of guys here knew it

I want the Land Cruiser to be a brand or even sub-brand and put all Toyota & Lexus BOF vehicles under it

(Mid)
Hilux with Fortuner & Innova
Fortuner= sporty design
Innova= traditional design

(Mid - Full)
*Go with the likes of Cayenne, X5/X6, GLE/GLE-Coupe in luxurious side as well as Pajero and other non luxurious mid-full
Tacoma with 4-Runner & Prado
4-Runner= sporty design
Prado= traditional design

(Full-HD)
* Go with the likes of GLS, Escalade, Navigator, Vogue, Bentayga & Cullinan as well as the other non luxurious as the Expedition & Suburban
Tundra with Seqouia & Cygnus
Seqouia= sporty design
Cygnus= traditional design

(Epic)
FJ-70 with pick-up & SUV version
Going with the G, Defender, Wrangler

 

[Levi]

As I always say and a lot of guys here knew it

I want the Land Cruiser to be a brand or even sub-brand and put all Toyota & Lexus BOF vehicles under it

(Mid)
Hilux with Fortuner & Innova
Fortuner= sporty design
Innova= traditional design

(Mid - Full)
*Go with the likes of Cayenne, X5/X6, GLE/GLE-Coupe in luxurious side as well as Pajero and other non luxurious mid-full
Tacoma with 4-Runner & Prado
4-Runner= sporty design
Prado= traditional design

(Full-HD)
* Go with the likes of GLS, Escalade, Navigator, Vogue, Bentayga & Cullinan as well as the other non luxurious as the Expedition & Suburban
Tundra with Seqouia & Cygnus
Seqouia= sporty design
Cygnus= traditional design

(Epic)
FJ-70 with pick-up & SUV version
Going with the G, Defender, Wrangler

Isn't the Toyota Innova a BOF MPV rather than SUV?


But yes, it could make sense. Yet the question to be answered is what brand/cars have image and improve the sales of the other one? Are Toyota models 'respected' because of the legendary BOF models, or are the BOF models legendary because they have Toyota's legendary reliability? What happens is they normal Toyotas and BOF cars are separated? Should they be still marketed under Toyota umbrella or be an all new brand (like Lexus, which in marketing tries to have or has little if any relation to Toyota)? And how much does marketing of a new brand cost? Will it be successful?

An example is how FCA made turned SRT variants into a sub-brand (like they did with the Fiat Punto/500/124 Spier and Abarth Punto/500/124 Spider). While the Abarth brand is successful from a marketing perspective, the SRT brand was not, and they stopped. On the other hand, making the Dodge Ram a Ram sub-brand turned out successful. Range Rover as a Land Rover sub-brand turns out to be fine, but the overall lineup makes little sense now. For Mercedes-Benz and their Mercedes-AMG and Mercedes-Maybach sub-brands, it is too early to tell. Despite years of debate whether M should be a sub-brand, they have no stand-alone model, not even the up-coming (Toyota co-)developed Z4. According to latest news, the i Brand may not exist as such anymore, and i will be a BMW variant like M, rather than a stand alone model.

Such a decision, if implemented demands a lot of effort, and also budget. It will only be made if their is significant long-term gain with low risk. Is it the case?