New Details on the Updated 2016 Lexus LX 570

[ivanovarinaldy]

You might be thinking of the Toyota Sienna, which is the North American Toyota minivan. Still, the point stands -- I would LOVE Lexus to do a minivan. I fell in love with the Alphard & Vellfire while in Japan, and I think Lexus is making a mistake by not offering a luxury van in North America.

And before we start talking about brand dilution and the potential difficulty in marketing such a vehicle, remember that BMW sells this:

View attachment 548

Yes! I was thinking about the Sienna! My mistake haha, thanks krew! Looks like I need to brush up on cars available in the states.

And that BMW, I don't really know what to say haha!

 

[Carmaker1]

What do you do Lexus ??
It was supposed to be full of change and not this revision
8 years after the passage of the current version of the Lexus retreat for the issuance of the new generation if this news is true
Whereas other products take its natural even change completely
For example: rx 2016 has a new modern specifications developed by Lexus, which differs from its predecessor Jdhiran
The question here is why does not lx 570 this change, which makes it unique in terms of size and characteristics given
There are many people who are waiting for the new generation LX 570 with new products in NX and RX specifications in terms of modernity in the product
And the other question: How long is the life of a generation LX 570 ????????
LX 570 to be outside the state change of the Lexus in its products

Not quite at all. The LX470 went into production in January 1998 and the LX570 in November 2007. That is 9 years and 10 months, basically 10 years. This is timed correctly and thankfully moderate, as I wouldn't want a heavy facelift on the 200 platform, ensuring a much longer run. The 300-Series is probably not due for another 2.5 to 3 years, which is understandable. The Toyota LC300 is already designed (styling wise), but the Lexus version might easily be out of the cards.

If this leak is accurate, this front-end refresh would imply another (typical) three years of life in the current body.

Very correct, it is not the "redesign" or FMC that some Lexus personnel wrongly suggested. More than a 2-3 year run would be stretching it. The minute I heard that "redesign" nonsense from last year's Lexus Dealer conference, I dismissed it as outlandish nonsense and likely a facelift, due to the timing of it and no prototype testing on such a complex vehicle. Hoovey and I had a great laugh over that via PMs on CL last fall.

The ignorance of some company personnel disappoints me, that they cannot tell the bloody difference between an intra-generational facelift and a proper next-generation redesign! It is not surprising, especially in how many blokes fell for the U.S.-market MY2015 Toyota Camry being "all-new"/next generation, when the real replacement was probably just signed off recently for MY2018. The lack of credibility at times is unfortunate.

I'm going to be very disappointed if this is all they do to "update" the LX.

It's better that they give it a moderate update, than a heavy one to the point that stretches the life-cycle for 4-5 more years, like it did for 2012-2016 LS. A next generation "300-Series" is already on the horizon, so this will nicely tide the 200-Series over while they finish that up.

I assume again Lexus is in a bind since the LX sells so good overseas, mainly in the middle east compared to sales in the states. In contrast the Escalade for example sells tons here but none overseas. So I can easily see this being another substantial refresh.

If it was me, the LX would remain and stay a niche SUV ala the G-Wagon Mercedes for example and then I would make a Tundra based big huge Escalade type SUV for more volume. The SUV market is here to stay it seems so just offer them all instead of picking and choosing.

It only sells well in the Middle East and is not even sold in much of Europe. Lexus would be better off investing in a full-size RWD CUV on the new modular platform, than a Sequoia. A redesign of that isn't even guaranteed, seeing as how it has been marginally updated since 2007 compared to the closely related Tundra and even the Land Cruiser. The real bind they are in, is with the newly found success of the GX460 in the US. The Prado will be redesigned by 2017, meaning critical decision-making has to be made in 2015 on whether to produce a direct successor to the GX or CUV instead.

When we test drove the Escalade and the GX side by side, it was no comparison. The Escalade felt like an upgraded Tahoe. It wasn't luxury at all to me. The GX was really nice, quiet, and had enough power to make it nice.

I hope they don't get rid of the Luxury 4 Runner (GX). The LX is should remain, as well, as its probably the best, most dependable, comfortable Full size Luxury SUV in the market (G-Wagon sucks, Range Rover sucks). Having an SUV on the Tundra platform - i'd vote for that. Make a Luxury Sequoia.

I would refrain from making such strongly opinionated statements, as there are many areas the LX fails in compared to those two. For that matter, it is G-Wagen (not G-wagon), which is short for Geländewagen. That has managed to stand the test of time over the past 25 years, through periodical refreshes (NOT redesigns). The Land Cruiser and LX have needed to go through various redesigns just to be current since 1990, unlike that of the W463 G-Class which still remains very close to the first generation W460 Geländewagen (launched in February 1979) and last received an evolutionary redesign in April 1990. The 80-Series has since been replaced twice, at the risk of becoming obsolete, even though it is quite timeless with the 1995-97 models and was a modern beauty upon launch in January 1990.


Range Rover invented this segment and has held its own for over a cherished 45-year history with premium luxury vehicle consumers. The idea of a Lexus 4x4 in the early 1990's, wouldn't have come to fruition if not for the successes of our RR in the luxury segment during the 1980s and the need to take the already moderately luxurious FJ80 further into the luxury realm, even as work begun on the more ambitious 100-Series for 1998. The foibles of RR still do not negate its rich history and current successes over the Lexus LX. I greatly cherish and respect the twins, but I will not pretend in any case that they are absolute perfection in every area.



The URJ150 GX460 is not a 4Runner, as they primarily share a common platform and power train. As previously stated, it's a reskinned Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (150-Series). A luxury Sequoia is a very bad idea, as the level of refinement is not really there in the first place. Extending the Land Cruiser family is a better idea, as the Sequoia nameplate has languished terribly in being greatly neglected.


A large RWD CUV on the new modular platform hopefully will not replace the LX, as design work on the next generation would reach pivotal points in 2014-15 for a 2018 launch.

 

[CIF]

Just to add on the topic of Land Cruiser history, there is the world famous 70 Series, which has not been replaced, and has been on the market since 1984, almost as long as the Benz G.

 

[Carmaker1]

Just to add on the topic of Land Cruiser history, there is the world famous 70 Series, which has not been replaced, and has been on the market since 1984, almost as long as the Benz G.

UZJ100GXR previously stated, that it will be redesigned as early as 2017. It is not exactly in the same (luxury) class as the Geländewagen, but more alongside the Defender 90 and 110. That particular development pleases me a great deal (although I am not part of it), as we fully move that forward into the 21st century. All three 20th Century holdovers (Geländewagen, Defender, and 70) will be fully revamped in the coming years.

 

[CIF]

UZJ100GXR previously stated, that it will be redesigned as early as 2017. It is not exactly in the same (luxury) class as the Geländewagen, but more alongside the Defender 90 and 110. That particular development pleases me a great deal (although I am not part of it), as we fully move that forward into the 21st century. All three 20th Century holdovers (Geländewagen, Defender, and 70) will be fully revamped in the coming years.

Yes I know, I was more referring to the fact that the 70 Series simply compares very well with the G-Class in terms of longevity on the market.

Also let's not forget; the G-Class originally was not luxurious at all. The G-Class was originally built to be primarily a military vehicle. It was only years later with some updates and revisions that it become more luxurious. As for the 70 Series, there was never really any need to make it luxurious, as some of the other Land Cruiser variants took over that role.

 

[Carmaker1]

Yes I know, I was more referring to the fact that the 70 Series simply compares very well with the G-Class in terms of longevity on the market.

Also let's not forget; the G-Class originally was not luxurious at all. The G-Class was originally built to be primarily a military vehicle. It was only years later with some updates and revisions that it become more luxurious. As for the 70 Series, there was never really any need to make it luxurious, as some of the other Land Cruiser variants took over that role.

Well, so did the Geländewagen/G-Class, in terms of other variants. The W461 succeeded the original W460, with the new W463 going on sale in 1990 and never being redesigned. The W461 is still around as the military version.

The W163 was supposed to be the successor to the W463 in 1997, but a July 1993 design proposal shifted the project in an entirely different direction. By February 1994 after some refinement, the M-Class design was set in stone and had a 1997 introduction. I used to have a Daimler-Benz AG photo from early 1993 of a blue 1:1 detailed design proposal, for a modernised G-Class redesign with stylised V-Class/Vito headlights. What became the M-Class killed that beautiful idea.

With the X164 GL-Class, this almost happened again in the 2000s. When MB facelifted the W463 in 2001, it was in parallel to the replacement GL-Class development programme's styling efforts in 2001-2002. By 2004, replacing the G-Class (W463) was again discarded. One cannot be certain if they will really redesign it for once in 2017.

Toyota was first to have an extended Land Cruiser family, before Land Rover and Mercedes-Benz did so later on. Hopefully Toyota will do that again come 2017-18 and ditch the Sequoia.

 

[mmcartalk]

Yes I know, I was more referring to the fact that the 70 Series simply compares very well with the G-Class in terms of longevity on the market.

Also let's not forget; the G-Class originally was not luxurious at all. The G-Class was originally built to be primarily a military vehicle. It was only years later with some updates and revisions that it become more luxurious. As for the 70 Series, there was never really any need to make it luxurious, as some of the other Land Cruiser variants took over that role.

Yes, the G-Class (Gelandewagen) was originally a 1980s German/Austrian military vehicle. Its build-solidness has to be sampled to be believed. Shut the doors on it, and the resulting thud is probably the closest thing to a bank-vault you will experience on a regular production vehicle....even more so then an unarmored Hummer G1. It also, to an extent, represents the way Mercedes used to build their regular production cars back in the 1980s (like tanks), before the rush to cost-cutting and thinner, lighter materials started to take over in the 1990s. In the 1980s, Mercedes had what were (arguably) the best-built cars in the world, although Toyota and Honda, of course, were establishing a reputation for reliability during that period. Many automotive historians credit the downfall of Mercedes quality in the 1990s to the new competition from Lexus (and Infiniti to a smaller extent) forcing them to cut costs.

And, yes, you can notice the difference. At the D.C. Auto Show last January, in the Mercedes display, compared to the solid G-Wagen they had on display, all of the other Mercedes American-market vehicles they had there seemed like the doors and body-panels were like cardboard.

 

[CIF]

I agree. The G-Class is really a special model. The MSRP, as well as the very strong resale values, reflect that.

 

[Carmaker1]

Yes, the G-Class (Gelandewagen) was originally a 1980s German/Austrian military vehicle. Its build-solidness has to be sampled to be believed. Shut the doors on it, and the resulting thud is probably the closest thing to a bank-vault you will experience on a regular production vehicle....even more so then an unarmored Hummer G1. It also, to an extent, represents the way Mercedes used to build their regular production cars back in the 1980s (like tanks), before the rush to cost-cutting and thinner, lighter materials started to take over in the 1990s. In the 1980s, Mercedes had what were (arguably) the best-built cars in the world, although Toyota and Honda, of course, were establishing a reputation for reliability during that period. Many automotive historians credit the downfall of Mercedes quality in the 1990s to the new competition from Lexus (and Infiniti to a smaller extent) forcing them to cut costs.

And, yes, you can notice the difference. At the D.C. Auto Show last January, in the Mercedes display, compared to the solid G-Wagen they had on display, all of the other Mercedes American-market vehicles they had there seemed like the doors and body-panels were like cardboard.

Yes, it is unlike any other Mercedes-Benz today in terms of that solid level of quality. I can personally attest to this, as I did own one for 3 years back in the US. I greatly miss driving that daily. You are very correct. In the spring of 1991, after conclusion of W140 S-Class development, Daimler-Benz AG was troubled by the USD $1,000,000,000 spending spree of Dr. Wolfgang Peter. Back then, you had recent sign-off of the W124 (E-Class) facelift for 1993 (MY1994), the W210 E-Class roughly 3 years into development with design work ongoing (planned for 1995), and W202 190E replacement 4 1/2 years into development (due 1993), with a design freeze back in January 1990.

From mid-1991, McKinsey & Company a consulting firm, recommended enacting simpler and cheaper solutions to Mercedes-Benz engineering and manufacturing through 1995. Daimler-Benz AG board started focusing on diversification and expansion of the model line-up, hence extra models like CLK, CL-Class, A-Class, and etc.

All, but the G-wagen were affected by this decision making. It was too late for the new W140, but the 190E replacement was primarily affected in the production/manufacturing process, the W210 from there on out (May 1992 freeze), and the W140 facelift launched in 1994 as a 1995 model. The June 1996 W140 swan song update rectified some issues.

McKinsey & Company's influence on Daimler-Benz AG from 1991 was so deep, that the Wolfgang Bernhard started at McKinsey in 1990 as a "management consultant" and then magically "joined" Mercedes-Benz AG in 1992 as an employee. He is currently on the Board of Management of Daimler AG and had various prior positions at Chrysler as well under DaimlerChrysler.

Lexus had their own cost cuts, that started with the 1995 LS400, which even affected the life-styles of senior Toyota executives (forced to travel coach vs business/first-class between Japan and LA). The 1998 LS400 (developed 1995-1997) rectified the mistakes of XF20 LS/Celsior development programme during 1990-1994, as well as the LS430 (1995-2000).

The Lexus LX450 was partially a result, of attempting to narrowly evade threatened proposed tariffs on Japanese luxury "cars" in the mid-90s by the Clinton administration. Katsuaki Watanabe and Fujio Cho have not helped matters either with some decisions, that hopefully Akio Toyoda continually tries to rectify.

 

[Carmaker1]

I agree. The G-Class is really a special model. The MSRP, as well as the very strong resale values, reflect that.

The same applies to the LX570 and Land Cruiser. Many people just do not get that, so I really don't bother explaining to them any further and politely move-on from the assertions that they're "overpriced". The Toyota twins are not as "antiquated", but the quality is there.

 

[CIF]

Katsuaki Watanabe and Fujio Cho have not helped matters either with some decisions, that hopefully Akio Toyoda continually tries to rectify.

Yes, a lot of fascinating insight that goes into that. Many of the mistakes Toyota made during late 90s, and much of the last decade, have been in a process of being rectified over the last several years, ever since Akio Toyoda took office. Historically, Toyota as a company has always been at its strongest with a Toyoda family member leading the company.

 

[mmcartalk]

From mid-1991, McKinsey & Company a consulting firm, recommended enacting simpler and cheaper solutions to Mercedes-Benz engineering and manufacturing through 1995. Daimler-Benz AG board started focusing on diversification and expansion of the model line-up, hence extra models like CLK, CL-Class, A-Class, and etc.

All, but the G-wagen were affected by this decision making. It was too late for the new W140, but the 190E replacement was primarily affected in the production/manufacturing process, the W210 from there on out (May 1992 freeze), and the W140 facelift launched in 1994 as a 1995 model. The June 1996 W140 swan song update rectified some issues.

McKinsey & Company's influence on Daimler-Benz AG from 1991 was so deep, that the Wolfgang Bernhard started at McKinsey in 1990 as a "management consultant" and then magically "joined" Mercedes-Benz AG in 1992 as an employee. He is currently on the Board of Management of Daimler AG and had various prior positions at Chrysler as well under DaimlerChrysler.

Lexus had their own cost cuts, that started with the 1995 LS400, which even affected the life-styles of senior Toyota executives (forced to travel coach vs business/first-class between Japan and LA). The 1998 LS400 (developed 1995-1997) rectified the mistakes of XF20 LS/Celsior development programme during 1990-1994, as well as the LS430 (1995-2000).

Thanks. I knew that M-B started building their cars less-solidly in the 90s because of Lexus competition, but didn't know the details....your post helped. I agree that Lexus, later on, did some cost-cutting in the same manner, but, from what I can tell, it started around 2005, not 1995. The LS430, which followed the LS400, was superb car in almost every way....arguably the best straight-luxury (non-sport-oriented) car Lexus ever did. It certainly didn't seem to me like it was cheapened.

Getting back to the LX570, though, I don't think the final decision has been made yet, but if it comes down to a basic choice next year between the LX and GX (Lexus apparently doesn't need two different truck-based, body-on-frame SUVs), my strong guess is that the LX will prevail.

 

[mmcartalk]

Yes, a lot of fascinating insight that goes into that. Many of the mistakes Toyota made during late 90s, and much of the last decade, have been in a process of being rectified over the last several years, ever since Akio Toyoda took office. Historically, Toyota as a company has always been at its strongest with a Toyoda family member leading the company.

I thought the worst mistake they made during the late 90s was when they redesigned the superb (but somewhat underpowered) 1994-1999 Celica (I owned one) and brought out the 2000 Celica. That version, IMO, looked like a Hot Wheels toy car, was tiny, cramped, and made of much lighter plastic materials than its predecessor.

 

[mmcartalk]

I agree. The G-Class is really a special model. The MSRP, as well as the very strong resale values, reflect that.

Quality does not come cheap.

The only mistake (if you can actually call it a mistake?) with the G-Class, IMO, was when they did an AMG version of it. The G-Class is the stereotype tall, narrow, tipsy SUV box-design, with a high center of gravity and a certain amount of tipsiness in the handling. While it is true that Mercedes (and BMW) have some of the best suspension engineers in the world, and helped perfect electronic stability and anti-roll systems, I'm still not sure that it was a good idea to put the power of a freight locomotive in that type of vehicle. AMG suspension/underpinnings or not, it just wasn't intended for that type of driving. It was a military-oriented, off-road Mountain-Goat.

 

[IS-SV]

The G (AMG versions) is hardly a mistake for a for-profit premium automaker, it's lucrative for Mercedes. The "stereotype of the tipiness" is like a lot of stereotypes and doesn't apply well. I have a close family that's owned one for several years, and it handles better than most trucks/SUVs with this much off road capability. The high CG is common in this class for sure.

The high horsepower number on paper is impressive but the big curb weight number blunts the effect in reality. Although the engine noise is impressive!

 

[mmcartalk]

The G AMG is hardly a mistake for a for-profit premium automaker, it's lucrative for Mercedes. The "stereotype of the tipiness" is like a lot of stereotypes and doesn't apply well. I have a close family that's owned one for several years, and it handles better than most trucks/SUVs with this much off road capability.

Well, like I said in my last post, M-B chassis engineers are indeed some of the best in the business. I'm sure that if anyone can make the G-Wagen stable or decent-handling, they (or BMW engineers) can. And they have had some 30 years to perfect this 80s-vintage design. Still, though, one cannot ultimately get around the laws of physics, and height + relative narrowness does have a tendency to raise the center of gravity. Of course, that doesn't mean that G-Wagons are like Suzuki Samurais, which would flip if you so much as looked at the steering wheel wrong....they are certainly not. But, still, IMO, that's a LOT of power to be put into a vehicle that was not originally designed for sport or aggressive-driving. Whether it was a mistake or not, of course, is open to interpretation and comment. You have your opinion on it (which I certainly respect) ....and I have mine. Since owner-experience is very important in your book, though (you have said that many times), I'll concede that I have not actually owned one, but have sampled non-AMG versions. I've yet to try an AMG G-Wagen, as they are generally hard to find).

 

[IS-SV]

^ Well no doubt, subject to opinion about "being a mistake". Yep in my book hands on experience with lots of miles and expertise adds value, versus stereotypes. I see you remember that, thank you.

And I said in my earlier post, Mercedes is for profit company (not a charity catering to whims of those not in market).

I think we all agree that G wagon is truly unique and special vehicle (thumbs up), hopefully new LX570 will be too.

 

[mmcartalk]

Back to the new 2016 LX570, one thing I hope they do this time around is actually give it some paint colors. I was not impressed at all when I looked at the Lexus website for the current version and, for a vehicle that starts at well over 83K, offers all of five rather dull exterior paint choices.....Pearl (Starfire) white, silver, gray, black, and cashmere (beige/tan metallic).

http://www.lexus.com/build-your-lexus/#!/zip/22181/series/LX/year/2015/trim/9620/buildId/103

BTW, just to be fair and objective, I'm not only saying this about the LX. I've pointed out, before, that the Hyundai Equus, a 60K + flagship, also started out here in the American market with four dull paint colors (Pearl white, silver, black, and gray)........and has since added a fifth (dark brown metallic).

 

[spwolf]

Back to the new 2016 LX570, one thing I hope they do this time around is actually give it some paint colors. I was not impressed at all when I looked at the Lexus website for the current version and, for a vehicle that starts at well over 83K, offers all of five rather dull exterior paint choices.....Pearl (Starfire) white, silver, gray, black, and cashmere (beige/tan metallic).

http://www.lexus.com/build-your-lexus/#!/zip/22181/series/LX/year/2015/trim/9620/buildId/103

BTW, just to be fair and objective, I'm not only saying this about the LX. I've pointed out, before, that the Hyundai Equus, a 60K + flagship, also started out here in the American market with four dull paint colors (Pearl white, silver, black, and gray)........and has since added a fifth (dark brown metallic).

it probably has to do with design of the vehicle, does not really fit many colors... plus it sells 200-300 per month.

 

[Carmaker1]

Yes, a lot of fascinating insight that goes into that. Many of the mistakes Toyota made during late 90s, and much of the last decade, have been in a process of being rectified over the last several years, ever since Akio Toyoda took office. Historically, Toyota as a company has always been at its strongest with a Toyoda family member leading the company.

Certainly, as much of the decision-making that took place in the late 1990s, affected model launches in the 2000s. Toyota had no choice, but to slash their operating costs after the Japanese economic crash in the early 1990s and lack improvement on that front. Shoichiro Toyoda had reasons for some of the decisions made prior to 1995. However, this was taken overboard by CEOs Hiroshi Okuda and Fujio Cho post-1995.

This mainly affected mainstream Toyota offerings, while they still maintained absolute quality development efforts on the likes of the 100-Series Land Cruiser (between 1991-1997) and XF30 LS430/Celsior during the 1995 to 2000 period. No longer did absolute quality extend across the board on all Toyota vehicles, like in the 1980s-early 1990s.

Thanks. I knew that M-B started building their cars less-solidly in the 90s because of Lexus competition, but didn't know the details....your post helped. I agree that Lexus, later on, did some cost-cutting in the same manner, but, from what I can tell, it started around 2005, not 1995. The LS430, which followed the LS400, was superb car in almost every way....arguably the best straight-luxury (non-sport-oriented) car Lexus ever did. It certainly didn't seem to me like it was cheapened.

Getting back to the LX570, though, I don't think the final decision has been made yet, but if it comes down to a basic choice next year between the LX and GX (Lexus apparently doesn't need two different truck-based, body-on-frame SUVs), my strong guess is that the LX will prevail.

You're welcome, as the decline of Mercedes-Benz is much of the time mistakenly muddled by most people, between the DaimlerChrysler merger in 1998 and vague points prior to that. Much of the actual decisions didn't start taking affect until 1993-94 at the very least, so much of the MB cars though 1993 are mostly solid.

This whole effort was designed around the W220 S-Class, which entwicklung (development) run from 1992 to 1998. The W140 of 1996-1998 (1997-99 model years) and updated R129 SLs were unique quality efforts, despite the era they were around in.


At Toyota, models like the 3rd generation Camry (XV10) of 1991-1996 and MKIV Supra (1993-2002) were unaffected, as much of their development was done before the early 1990's Japanese downturn or already received prior investment. The 1997 Camry (XV20) entered development in late 1991 (design concept August 1993, body design freeze in April 1994) and was a major reduction in costs at a meagre USD $300 million by start of production in August 1996 vs around $625,000,000 for the 1992 (between 1986-1991).


By launch of the 1997 Camry, the FWD K platform was in development and has been a mainstay since introduction in November 2000. The first generation Harrier/RX shared a platform with XV20 Camry and 3ES, until the XU30 RX/Harrier (K-platform) introduction in 2003. The new RX still uses the K-platform.


Reception of the redesigned LS400 (1994-1997) was not as positive as the original, so plenty of effort was put into its facelift and the XF30 (LS430), especially since the amount of money saved on the XF20 programme made the latter justifiable and the overall design was too similar to the 1989-1994 version to last past 2000. Much the second generation LS' styling was done by the end of 1991 and final during the first half of 1992, at the beginning of a new unfortunate era in Japanese cost cuts. This was indicative of many redesigns by Japanese automakers in the mid-late 1990s, but had yet to reach the worse levels it did in the early-mid 2000s.


The name of the game under Cho, was to consolidate the amount of vehicle platforms at Toyota, significantly reduce the amount of time spent on development programmes and prototypes built for testing. The target was also to narrow the the gap between design freeze (final prod. styling) and production start-up from an average of 30 months in the early 1990s, down to 18-20 or less months in 2000. By the mid-2000s, you had this happening at 10-12 months with some Toyota models on the MC and K-platforms. Nissan did similar to a much less effective and hardly profitable degree, until Ghosn arrived in 1999.


Heavy investment from the late 1990's on virtual, lean development (i.e. Catia-CATAM) made for some of much worse errors that began showing up in the early-mid 2000s. By 2007, Toyota started trying to turn things around in that respect, but Watanabe was deposed. I would blame Fujio Cho and his predecessor for the majority of failures at Toyota, as they had more time at the helm to enact bad decisions and Watanabe was only there for 4 years. Watanabe instituted some reversals at Toyota and presided as CEO over the second half of LFA development, but wasn't successful in his endeavours.


From 2007, all Toyota cars have required 4-6 year development programmes and 24-30 months for production development. It is why the prominent Spindle Grille took as long as it did to show up from enactment in 2010 to intro on 2013 models. The current GS was designed before that (2009), with only the current IS receiving the grille before concept approval in 2010. Today's facelift highlight this more.


Now back to the LX. By now, it is the time for Toyota to be making these critical decisions. I know that since the LX is based on the Land Cruiser, an existing/shared platform, it can go into development after the fact. The quad headlight LX470/Cygnus was frozen by the beginning of 1996, about 1 1/2 years after the 100-Series Land Cruiser circa June-July 1994. Both entered production in January 1998 after an enormous 42 months of LC100 production model development and 24 months for LX470.


The 200 programme began in 2002, which was some months before the summer 2002 unveiling of the 100 facelift for MY2003. By the end of 2004, targets and concept were reached, with much of design work complete, and on schedule for late 2007 start of production. A swan song 100 update arrived in May 2005 for 2006 models, pretty much parallel and hinted at the next set for MY2008.


At this stage, it more than likely a redesign due the in 2017-18 period (barring any unforeseen delays). The 300-Series Toyota variant is pretty much locked-in by now, so a Lexus version isn't far behind that. A 2018/2019 model year redesign has to be approved already. These changes for MY2016 might preview cues of the next Land Cruiser and LX. The fact it is being launched in Japan this year (thanks UZJ100GXR), might guarantee a next generation LX. There would be no point to go through the trouble of introducing the LX450d and LX570, then cancelling it altogether by 2018.

Anything on the large utility vehicle front has reached styling approval already (middle point of development) and if the TX, either quietly rejected or approved for a launch in the near future. The internal deciding on the future of the GX has to be made this year, as Toyota does not need to wait until next year. I can imagine they are baffled about the last 18-20 months of GX sales performance in the US.

The 180-Series (next Prado) has been designed by this point, with mainly production engineering work ongoing for it. It was last facelifted in late 2013 and updated this year, now in its 6th year. They will unnecessarily waste money, if after developing (research/concept) and approving a new GX body (180) in 2015, suddenly decide next year to cancel it. The next generation Prado (180) is likely due by 2017 and some mules have been seen testing.

I thought the worst mistake they made during the late 90s was when they redesigned the superb (but somewhat underpowered) 1994-1999 Celica (I owned one) and brought out the 2000 Celica. That version, IMO, looked like a Hot Wheels toy car, was tiny, cramped, and made of much lighter plastic materials than its predecessor.

The T200 1994 Celica began development in late 1989, exterior/interior designs were final by June of 1991 (influenced by MKIV Supra and Z30 Soarer/SC), and hardly affected by the cost reductions. The development of the T230 Celica between 1995-1999 (1997 sign-off) did create a fan favourite in terms "performance", but received those obvious reductions in quality as you said.

Quality does not come cheap.

The only mistake (if you can actually call it a mistake?) with the G-Class, IMO, was when they did an AMG version of it. The G-Class is the stereotype tall, narrow, tipsy SUV box-design, with a high center of gravity and a certain amount of tipsiness in the handling. While it is true that Mercedes (and BMW) have some of the best suspension engineers in the world, and helped perfect electronic stability and anti-roll systems, I'm still not sure that it was a good idea to put the power of a freight locomotive in that type of vehicle. AMG suspension/underpinnings or not, it just wasn't intended for that type of driving. It was a military-oriented, off-road Mountain-Goat.

I am sorry, but I personally do not agree with that. I owned a 2009 G55 AMG for 3 years and it is very much one of most composed body-on-frame SUV I've ever driven (aside from LX570 and QX56/80). My shorter Defender 90 is not even comparable, but that is very much expected of course. I am not the most aggressive driver (a little defensive though), but it holds its own very well and so does the G63 (only driven that twice).

The W463, while not exactly a Range Rover, is not exactly military-oriented anymore (unless converted). The amount of updates to the luxury-focused W463 over the past 25 years have it more palatable for on-road driving operation and handling. The original AMG W463 in 2001 might have been a bit more "challenged", but newer examples have improved. The W461 and W463 are still two different beasts, albeit similar. An SVR version of my 90 would be a more useless proposition, than AMG W463s.

The G (AMG versions) is hardly a mistake for a for-profit premium automaker, it's lucrative for Mercedes. The "stereotype of the tipiness" is like a lot of stereotypes and doesn't apply well. I have a close family that's owned one for several years, and it handles better than most trucks/SUVs with this much off road capability. The high CG is common in this class for sure.

The high horsepower number on paper is impressive but the big curb weight number blunts the effect in reality. Although the engine noise is impressive!

Exactly, it is just a stereotype, which isn't so accurate across the board. Never once did I ever feel anxious about mine losing control during sharp road maneuvers. Of all the numerous vehicles I've driven over the past decade, I've never been in an accident (thankfully). With near-collisions, it was never in my G55.

I made primary use of it in Upper Manhattan/NYC/northern NJ area during 2009-12 and had no problems, outside of encountering parking difficulties on occasion. Driving a Defender 90 to work daily on the UK M6 had been more of a burden for me in the winter (between late 2013 and January 2014), that it was soon replaced by an Evoque.

Back to the new 2016 LX570, one thing I hope they do this time around is actually give it some paint colors. I was not impressed at all when I looked at the Lexus website for the current version and, for a vehicle that starts at well over 83K, offers all of five rather dull exterior paint choices.....Pearl (Starfire) white, silver, gray, black, and cashmere (beige/tan metallic).

http://www.lexus.com/build-your-lexus/#!/zip/22181/series/LX/year/2015/trim/9620/buildId/103

BTW, just to be fair and objective, I'm not only saying this about the LX. I've pointed out, before, that the Hyundai Equus, a 60K + flagship, also started out here in the American market with four dull paint colors (Pearl white, silver, black, and gray)........and has since added a fifth (dark brown metallic).

I agree and I am not sure why colour choice has been limited over the years. The LX570 started out with 6, adding a (blue) Costa Azul Mica in late 2008 for MY2009. As I have said before, Lexus needs to invest more in customisation. I know that their business model in the US, is to avoid special ordering as much as possible, but this is not an NX.

There is a lack of prestige (competitively) in the Lexus name greatly for this reason, in how customers in Europe are not allowed to create a Lexus to their exact taste, as they are elsewhere (Land Rover, Mercedes-Benz). Not only because it has just been seen as a value proposition stateside, as some US customers do value uniqueness and are not all about pre-packaged/bundled equipment vehicles. The upper end of Lexus is suffering with marginally competitive products in the US and Europe.

Individual options and a broader colour palette would make an LX starting at USD $90-95k, instead of $83,000.

it probably has to do with design of the vehicle, does not really fit many colors... plus it sells 200-300 per month.

That is not really a good excuse for them, as colour and materials personnel of the design Lexus department for these vehicles in Aichi, can certainly can do better. Volume should not even determine why a limited colour selection is justifiable in this bracket. The design has failed, if a company has to feel that way. I do not work in that aspect of body design in my profession nor for Toyota, so maybe I am not the one to understand why that would suffice. Maybe Toyota needs to choose new suppliers.