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.