Lexus Mulls Small Crossover

[Variance]

Lexus Mulls Small Crossover

By Global Auto Systems Staff

February 17, 2006

New premium compact CUV would be based on Toyota RAV and could be assembled in Canada.

TOKYO—Toyota's upscale Lexus brand, as part of an ongoing expansion of its product portfolio, plans to introduce at least one more luxury crossover and is considering the addition of a smaller near-luxury crossover based on the recently redesigned RAV4.

The proposed compact Lexus CUV would be positioned as a smaller sibling to the popular RX330 and would be targeted at Acura's Accord-based RDX, which goes into production this summer. Sources familiar with Toyota's plans say the company could bring the smaller Lexus, which as yet has no name, to market as early as 2008.

The compact Lexus crossover would be built on Toyota's new MC global mid-size platform, which also underpins the '07 Camry and '07 ES350 sedans. The same platform will be used as the foundation for the 2009 RX350, which replaces the current RX330 in fall 2008.

Supplier sources say Toyota is also studying a proposal to consolidate production of the three Lexus vehicles—the ES350, the RX350, and the new compact crossover—at its new plant in Woodstock, Ontario, in 2008-09.

The Lexus brand is planning to add a high-end crossover vehicle, based on its 2003 HPX concept, in 2008. The all-wheel-drive CUV, which will share its underpinnings with the IS sedan, will be imported from Japan and will be positioned to compete with the Infiniti FX.

Link: http://globalautosystems.com/index.php?opt...id=263&Itemid=2

[Flybrian]

Unneeded.

[Hudson]

Unneeded.

Perhaps...but it's already on its way.

[Flybrian]

I understand. And to elaborate, I do find humor in the fact that all these brands are battling with vehicles that don't even exist yet in a market segment that might prove to be a lot shallower than anyone seems to anticipate right now.

These types of vehicles seem to have absolutely no advantange over anything else in their segment. They're smaller than traditional midsize crossovers and offer less utility, they don't perform nor handle nearly as well as their sedan and wagon counterparts, have absolutely no offroad prowess, yet cost more.

Its unbelievable to watch as these things literally create a market for themselves for no logical reason.

[Variance]

Its unbelievable to watch as these things literally create a market for themselves for no logical reason.

Nonsense. They're perfect for the up and coming compact-luxury-SUV-for-people that-want-an-SUV-but-not-a-big-one-that-has-a-luxury-badge market.

In all seriousness, there seems to be the theory of "if you build it, they will come" at work here.

[sciguy_0504]

Exactly, Variance. Not everyone needs an Escalade or Navigator to throw the fact that they have money in everyone's face. Plus, isn't GM thinking of bringing a sub-SRX into the fray? Even though it would probably be RWD, it would go head-to-head with the already establishing market.

The IS-based sport crossover sounds interesting, too.

[Variance]

And thinking about it, if the ugly-as-an-Aztek-hit-with-a-bag-of-bricks BMW X3 can find customers, I see no reason a small crossover from any other brand can't find at least as many.

[carman21]

I think that there is a market for such a vehicle. The RX would likely get upgraded to the $40k plus range and include a 4.6L V-8 option. The new CUV would be likely to have a 2.5L 204hp V-6 & a 3.5L 268hp V-6. Prices would be around $30k-40k. I wouldn't suggest it for Caddy just yet but, let Lexus take the risk. The worst that happens is that they discontinue it.

[wildcat]

Yes, let Lexus have their cute ute, and let it be a big success.

Then Buick will be forced to make one of their own... and I'll buy it!

< Mr. Burns' voice > Ex-cellent!

[bobo]

I'm not a fan of SUVs, but more small ones rather than more big ones is good. The IS-based CUV will be a whole more interesting than yet another Camry-based SUV.

[Hudson]

I understand. And to elaborate, I do find humor in the fact that all these brands are battling with vehicles that don't even exist yet in a market segment that might prove to be a lot shallower than anyone seems to anticipate right now.

The upcoming Lexus CUV will go up against the upcoming Acura RDX and the CURRENT BMW X3. Seems logical aiming at an existing vehicle and preventing a rival company from having an edge on itself.

These types of vehicles seem to have absolutely no advantange over anything else in their segment. They're smaller than traditional midsize crossovers and offer less utility, they don't perform nor handle nearly as well as their sedan and wagon counterparts, have absolutely no offroad prowess, yet cost more.

I can't argue there. But I'm anti-SUV of any size for the typical "soccer mom" and daily commuter.

Its unbelievable to watch as these things literally create a market for themselves for no logical reason.

"No logical reason?" The logic is that if you "create a market," you get the field to yourself...boosting prices and profits. Minivans made amazing money for Chrysler for many years. When the Explorer had nearly half the mid-sized SUV market, Ford was raking in the cash. Dodge had the mid-sized pickup market to itself for nearly a decade. GM had the extra-large SUV market to itself from the late 1970s until the late 1990s. Every car company wants to find an untapped niche. It's worth a fortune...and it's quite logical.

[pow]

With all that said, I'd rather have a small, good-handling SUV than a larger, poorer-handling one. Why I'd have an SUV in the first place, I don't know...

Btw, I've grown to like the X3 more... have to admit there's something exciting, no matter how daft and pointless it is, about a tall 4095-lb SUV that does 0.88g on the skidpad and stops from 70 mph sooner than a Corvette can (157 ft).

[Flybrian]

"No logical reason?" The logic is that if you "create a market," you get the field to yourself...boosting prices and profits. Minivans made amazing money for Chrysler for many years. When the Explorer had nearly half the mid-sized SUV market, Ford was raking in the cash. Dodge had the mid-sized pickup market to itself for nearly a decade. GM had the extra-large SUV market to itself from the late 1970s until the late 1990s. Every car company wants to find an untapped niche. It's worth a fortune...and it's quite logical.

I understand the business sense of it, so I was commenting more on the illogic of a compact SUV that 'handles well' as opposed to a car that would handle infinitely better.

In my mind, those vehicle classes you mentioned above filled a then-untapped need. What do these things accomplish in the sense of 'need'? Again, little space, little utility, no offroadness, compromised sportiness and handling, and with AWD available in many cars, there goes that advantage.

But I digress as I'm repeating myself.

[regfootball]

Nonsense. They're perfect for the up and coming compact-luxury-SUV-for-people that-want-an-SUV-but-not-a-big-one-that-has-a-luxury-badge market.

In all seriousness, there seems to be the theory of "if you build it, they will come" at work here.

showing leadership in the market perhaps.

UNLIKE GM.

[regfootball]

With all that said, I'd rather have a small, good-handling SUV than a larger, poorer-handling one. Why I'd have an SUV in the first place, I don't know...

Btw, I've grown to like the X3 more... have to admit there's something exciting, no matter how daft and pointless it is, about a tall 4095-lb SUV that does 0.88g on the skidpad and stops from 70 mph sooner than a Corvette can (157 ft).

At first the X3 seemed ok.

Then i sat in one. Yuck.

Now I see a few more on the road, and i like them less and less, ok, almost none now. I think they X3 is a damn joke. It's a POS poseur wagon.

[regfootball]

I understand the business sense of it, so I was commenting more on the illogic of a compact SUV that 'handles well' as opposed to a car that would handle infinitely better.

In my mind, those vehicle classes you mentioned above filled a then-untapped need. What do these things accomplish in the sense of 'need'? Again, little space, little utility, no offroadness, compromised sportiness and handling, and with AWD available in many cars, there goes that advantage.

But I digress as I'm repeating myself.

upright driving position with its more comfortable seating and greater road visibility.......feeling of safety being higher up........larger cargo hold than a sedan of a vehicle of the same footprint.......a feeling of ruggedness and 'go anywhere'....

mind you the SUV 'attributes' were mostly perpetrated / purported by women, but they have stuck in the market

hey, all some folks want is a tall hatchback so they can see the road, sit comfy like a chair and have the cargo hold swallow stuff from their ikea and pier one trips, and get around without RWD fuss in bad weather.

This just in: the idea of a sedan is outdated to many buyers these days because the sedan lacks in those areas and has 'old' 'inefficient' packaging. Ok, sedans were officially starting to be out about 7 years ago.....or more

[toyoguy]

build it, the new RAV4 chassis is good enough for the Lexus line.

Edited February 19, 2006 by toyoguy

[enzl]

upright driving position with its more comfortable seating and greater road visibility.......feeling of safety being higher up........larger cargo hold than a sedan of a vehicle of the same footprint.......a feeling of ruggedness and 'go anywhere'....

mind you the SUV 'attributes' were mostly perpetrated / purported by women, but they have stuck in the market

hey, all some folks want is a tall hatchback so they can see the road, sit comfy like a chair and have the cargo hold swallow stuff from their ikea and pier one trips, and get around without RWD fuss in bad weather.

This just in: the idea of a sedan is outdated to many buyers these days because the sedan lacks in those areas and has 'old' 'inefficient' packaging.  Ok, sedans were officially starting to be out about 7 years ago.....or more

The Hatchback has had its revenge! That's all a CUV is, really...again, one of the reasons GM is in the position they are in is because of an inability to identify New Niches in a timely manner...it doesn't surprise me that one of the Mods here is just as shortsighted.

[Flybrian]

...it doesn't surprise me that one of the Mods here is just as shortsighted.

How cute. As if my position made a difference.

[enzl]

How cute. As if my position made a difference.

Just making a point. Easy hoss...

I just think the whole starting point of this thread was a weakly thought-out position. Obviously, making a wagon taller and heavier than its more 'carlike' bretheren will hurt its abilities ( to be a car for enthusiast drivers)....but I'm pretty sure that history has proven Toyota correct with the Rav4, RX & Highlander driving a large part of Toyota's success in the past few years...

The question should have been- Why hadn't they gone to the well again sooner?

Edited February 20, 2006 by enzl

[Hudson]

I understand the business sense of it, so I was commenting more on the illogic of a compact SUV that 'handles well' as opposed to a car that would handle infinitely better.

In my mind, those vehicle classes you mentioned above filled a then-untapped need. What do these things accomplish in the sense of 'need'? Again, little space, little utility, no offroadness, compromised sportiness and handling, and with AWD available in many cars, there goes that advantage.

But I digress as I'm repeating myself.

I understand the oxymoronic quality of an "SUV that 'handles well.'" I'm all for SUVs that go off road or cars that handle well.

While the minivan absolutely covered an untapped market, styling is a quality that has been missing as much as economical 7-passenger vehicles were vacant from the marketplace in 1983. Styling, in some cases, leads to image which, as we all know, sells most of the SUVs on the road today. Not defending it...just explaining it.

Someone once debated the usefulness of "non-functional" scoops on a car. Their use is for styling, which makes them "functional." Just like making a better handling SUV makes the vehicle more useful and more desireable to someone. Whatever floats their boat.

[titan]

Unneeded.

I disagree. The market will be filled very quickly with this new segment; the small lux CUV. Infiniti, MB, Audi, Caddy, Buick, and now Lexus, will soon have an entry to compete with the X3 and RDX. But Lexus still has way to much overlap in other segments. The RX is sure to grow a bit, but the addition of yet another crossover for to compete against the FX is stupid. That competition for the RX. And the GX is a total waist of time... The LX will die to make way for a large lux SUV based on the next gen Sequoia. So, that's the RX, GX, Sequoia-based SUV, baby CUV, and a supposed FX fighter. That's two to many, att he least, IMO.