Review: 2020 Lexus UX 200 F-Sport

[William Maley]

Like it or not, crossovers are becoming the de facto choice for many buyers and automakers are responding. There is now a wide variety of crossovers available: From large three-row models to small, compact vehicles perfect for urban environments. The latter is what we’ll be focusing on this review with the latest entrant into subcompact luxury crossover class, the 2020 Lexus UX 200 F-Sport. It’s a late arrival to the class, but as I found out with the Volvo XC40 last year, that isn’t a bad thing. So how does the most affordable Lexus model stack up to the competition?

Crossover or Hatchback on Stilts?

It feels odd to think of the UX being more of a hatchback with a taller ride height than a crossover, but allow me to make my case. To start, the overall shape reminds me more of the Toyota Corolla Hatchback than the NX and RX crossovers. The roofline is a perfect example as the shape is similar to Corolla than any Lexus crossover. Second is when you get inside the UX. You may think that you step up to get inside, but it’s the opposite. The lower position might cause you to think that you lose out on the visibility gain with a higher ride height, but that isn’t the case as you have excellent visibility around most of the vehicle. The rear is difficult to see out of due to the thick pillar and it is recommended to order the optional backup camera.

The UX 200 does make its presence known to everyone due to some bold design choices. Upfront lies the latest iteration of Lexus’ spindle grille along with some deep cuts in the bumper to give the model an aggressive attitude. The side profile features unique sculpting on the doors and the roof steeply raked towards the back. A vibrant color palette such as this orange on my tester only adds to the bold ideal.

A Small, Premium Interior

Lexus has mostly nailed the UX’s interior appointments with soft-touch materials featuring stitching on the dash, metal-like buttons for the climate control system, and contrasting stitching for the seats. The only part which slightly ruins this luxury feeling is the cheap-feeling door panels. Leatherette upholstery is used on the seats and it feels quite nice when sitting on them. F-Sport models get heavily bolster front seats which may make some larger people uncomfortable. Power adjustments for the front come standard on all UX models and allows both driver and passenger to find a comfortable position.

The rear seat is quite snug for two people, while three is severely pushing it. Legroom can range from ok to non-existent if a tall person happens to be sitting upfront. Headroom is decent for most people, even with the optional sunroof. Cargo space is about average for the class with 21.7 cubic feet with the rear seats up. A tall lift-over height does make it a pain to load heavy items into the vehicle.

Infotainment System is Better, But Still Frustrating

The base infotainment system is a 7-inch screen, while a larger 10.25-inch screen is available as an option. Controlling each screen is Lexus’ Remote Touch system. The touchpad controller is unwieldy because you need to pay attention to the screen while making a selection. Otherwise, you’ll end up selecting a different function or setting than what you had originally aimed for. Lexus has added a touchscreen to the recently refreshed RX for 2020 and I can only hope this appears on other Lexus models down the road.

One change that will be a welcome relief to Android users is that Lexus has added Android Auto compatibility to the system, bringing Lexus in line with most competitors with offering this and Apple CarPlay.

Mediocre Performance Except In Fuel Economy

Under the hood of the UX 200 is a 2.0L inline-four producing 169 horsepower and 151 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with CVT and front-wheel drive. If you want AWD, then your only option is the UX 250h which pairs the 2.0L with a hybrid system. The 2.0 really struggles at high speeds as evidenced by a 0-60 time of 8.9 seconds. Competitors in the class are at least are a second or two quicker. The engine also has a noticeable drone that appears when you are accelerating hard. But around town, the 2.0 feels quite punchy with excellent get-up and minimal fuss.

Where the UX does well is in fuel economy. EPA figures are 29 City/37 Highway/33 Combined for the UX 200. My average for the week landed around 31 on a 60/40 mix of highway and city driving.

I’m wondering if the UX could fit the 2.5L four-cylinder from the Toyota Camry. It would improve overall performance with a slight hit to fuel economy.

Surprising Handling Characteristics

Going for the F-Sport version like my test vehicle will net you a revised suspension setup. Going around bends, the UX shows little body roll and quick reactions. The only item that falters is the steering which feels very rubbery and doesn’t encourage enthusiastic driving. For normal driving duties, the UX’s ride quality is on the complaint side with a few bumps making their way inside. I do wish Lexus had done more to keep tire noise from coming inside, especially at highway speeds

The Price Is Right

With a starting price tag of $32,300 for the base UX 200, this makes it the most affordable model in the class. It also happens to be very good value as it comes with the Lexus Safety System+ 2.0 as standard. This suite of active safety features includes forward-collision warning, automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, and automatic high beams. The UX 200 F-Sport seen here comes with an as-tested price of $41,285 and that’s with the optional navigation system, windshield deicer, heads-up display, and power tailgate. To get something similar on the competition, you’ll need to spend a few extra thousand dollars.

The 2020 UX 200 makes a very compelling case for itself in the subcompact luxury crossover class. This is due in part to its low price and a long list of standard equipment. A competent handling package in the F-Sport and decent fuel economy figures help bolster the model further. But there are areas Lexus needs to address, primarily the engine and infotainment system. The good news is that Lexus has the necessary solutions to both these issues in the form of the infotainment system from the RX and borrowing the 2.5L four-cylinder from the Camry. It would move the UX from being somewhere in the competent class to one that can compete for class honors.

Disclaimer: Lexus Provided the UX 200, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

Year: 2020
Make: Lexus
Model: UX
Trim: 200 F-Sport
Engine: 2.0L 16-Valve DOHC VVT-i Four-Cylinder
Driveline: CVT, Front-Wheel Drive
Horsepower @ RPM: 169 @ 6,600
Torque @ RPM: 151 @ 4,800
Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 29/37/33
Curb Weight: 3,307 lbs
Location of Manufacture: Miyawaka, Fukuoka, Japan
Base Price: $40,260
As Tested Price: $41,285 (Includes $1,025.00 Destination Charge)

Options:
Navigation System with 10.3-in Color Multimedia Display - $2,200.00
F-Sport Premium Package - $975.00
Power Rear Door w/Kick Sensor - $600.00
Premium Paint - $595.00
Parking Assist, Rear Cross Traffic Alert w/Braking - $565.00
Blind Spot Monitor - $500.00
Head Up Display (HUD) - $500.00
Heated F Sport Steering Wheel w/Paddle Shifters - $150.00
Windshield Deicer - $100.00
Wireless Charger - $75.00

View full article

[G. David Felt]

Great write up. Thank you @William Maley I also find this very much a weird body style that is more hatchback than CUV tradition.

If one did not want an Asian CUV, which would you best compare this to from America and German?

[Robert Hall]

I suppose the competition would include the XT4, Corsair, Evoque, e-pace, GLA, Q3, X1/X2, XC40...crowded segment.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

"OMG, the cladding!"

[William Maley]

32 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Great write up. Thank you @William Maley I also find this very much a weird body style that is more hatchback than CUV tradition.

If one did not want an Asian CUV, which would you best compare this to from America and German?

Possibly the BMW X2 is the closest competitor since it shares that coupe-like shape of the UX. Upside is more powerful engines and better driving dynamics from what I read. Downsides are its slightly questionable looks and how expensive it can get.

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

"OMG, the cladding!"

'looks terrible, doesn't it?!

I still cannot understand a luxury branded "SUV" with less than 170hp and a measly 150 torques exists. 

[balthazar]

Don’t forget “$42K base for a FWD / CVT generic appliance crossover?!?”

Edited February 28, 2020 by balthazar

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Don’t forget “$42K base for a FWD / CVT generic appliance crossover?!?”

He mentions its 32k base price. $32,300 per their website. 

You can actually get the AWD, hybrid, top trim package, "Luxury", for under 40k. 

[balthazar]

That’s not the F-spurt, which IS a $42K 169 HP FWD CVT appliance. Non-Spurt must be even more dreadful.

[surreal1272]

No, no, no, and yet more no! Too many better options over this overdressed (and uglier) version of a RAV4.

[Robert Hall]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

That’s not the F-spurt, which IS a $42K 169 HP FWD CVT appliance. Non-Spurt must be even more dreadful.

Non-Sport is the Mall spec I guess..

[ccap41]

F-Sport is just an appearance package on this. 

[smk4565]

It has plastic body cladding, that means it can go off road.  

Less horsepower in this than a 1998 Pontiac Montana minivan, which was also a proven off roader.

[balthazar]

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

F-Sport is just an appearance package on this. 

8 grand for cladding??

[ocnblu]

CVT is totally inappropriate for a luxury brand.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

8 grand for cladding??

Yes and $2k extra for TRD Pro stickers.  

I actually think this vehicle is one of the biggest rip offs on the market right now.

[G. David Felt]

7 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Yes and $2k extra for TRD Pro stickers.  

I actually think this vehicle is one of the biggest rip offs on the market right now.

Chevrolet Bolt is probably faster too than this auto.  

[ocnblu]

41 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Chevrolet Bolt is probably faster too than this auto.  

Right up to the moment it needs recharged

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Right up to the moment it needs recharged

Just like right up to the point you have to refill the empty tank!

[riviera74]

One question: Why would anybody buy the UX200 when the XT4 is most certainly a better value if not a better CUV?  Why pay the Lexus tax?

[smk4565]

14 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

One question: Why would anybody buy the UX200 when the XT4 is most certainly a better value if not a better CUV?  Why pay the Lexus tax?

X1, X2, GLA, GLB, Q3 are all better than this thing.  There are 5 better options right there.  Really the XT4 would be an NX competitor.  But Cadillac could easily put out an XT3 at $33k and easily undercut the UX.

[balthazar]

31 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

One question: Why would anybody buy the UX200 when the XT4 is most certainly a better value if not a better CUV?  Why pay the Lexus tax?

XT4 is definitely a better SUV : 9-spd transmission and 70 more HP!

[smk4565]

But XT4 is a Lexus NX competitor.  Cadillac, Lincoln and Acura have no competitor to the UX.

[balthazar]

Neither the UX or NX compete very well against the XT4 :

UX : 177",  $32.3K,  169 HP,  CVT
NX : 182",  $36.8K,  194 HP,  6-spd
XT4 : 181",  $35.7K,  237 HP,  9-spd

[Robert Hall]

That leaves room for an XT3 to compete with UX.   Wouldn't surprise me  Given how GM is adding a lot of new CUVs, it wouldn't surprise me if Cadillac doesn't get it's own version of the Encore GX.  Cadillac only has 3 CUVs, compared to Chevy with 6, Buick w/ 4, and GMC with 2...

Edited February 29, 2020 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

Cadillac has a popular, well-executed 181" XT4, why on Earth would they spend a billion dollars to bring out one that's 3-4 inches shorter??
Duplicity run amok.

Lexus should've put all their development dollars into 1 CUV then maybe they could've given it a competitive powertrain. Or combine the 2 in the next re-do and call it the NUX.

Unless you just can't get ENOUGH of 169 HP CVT FWD generic/ugly appliances...

Edited February 29, 2020 by balthazar

[smk4565]

It won't cost a lot of money for GM to make a Cadillac XT3 out of existing parts.  

Cadillac could easily do an XT2 at 170" long and $29,990, and XT3 at 175" and $33,990 or something along those lines.  Just like they could do an XT7 easily as well as either an Omega platform SUV, or a fastback roof, coupe style XT6.   All this stuff is in the parts bin somewhere.

[riviera74]

6 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That leaves room for an XT3 to compete with UX.   Wouldn't surprise me  Given how GM is adding a lot of new CUVs, it wouldn't surprise me if Cadillac doesn't get it's own version of the Encore GX.  Cadillac only has 3 CUVs, compared to Chevy with 6, Buick w/ 4, and GMC with 2...

Does Cadillac REALLY need a UX competitor when the XT4 does nicely?  NOW, a GLS competitor (based on Omega or its successor) would do very nicely.  Besides, a RWD crossover (not a BOF Escalade) would be a good complement to the Cadillac family of SUVs.

[smk4565]

20 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Does Cadillac REALLY need a UX competitor when the XT4 does nicely?  NOW, a GLS competitor (based on Omega or its successor) would do very nicely.  Besides, a RWD crossover (not a BOF Escalade) would be a good complement to the Cadillac family of SUVs.

An XT4 is about 8 inches longer than a GLA, 6 more than a Q3, so there is room at Cadillac for a 175 inch long XT3.    Hyundai Kona is selling well and is 18 inches shorter than an XT4.   And the Hyundai Venue is 2 feet shorter than an XT4.  Not that Cadillac is competing with Hyundai, but the market is demanding SUV's smaller than the XT4, because a lot of manufacturers are bringing out smaller than XT4 vehicles, and GM has some in the stable as well.

Escalade is their GLS competitor, though I agree using Omega for an SUV would be better than any of the current Cadillac SUV platforms that come from the Equinox,  Acadia and Tahoe.

[Robert Hall]

27 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Does Cadillac REALLY need a UX competitor when the XT4 does nicely?  NOW, a GLS competitor (based on Omega or its successor) would do very nicely.  Besides, a RWD crossover (not a BOF Escalade) would be a good complement to the Cadillac family of SUVs.

Well, they could do it on the cheap since they already have the hardware, and it gives them one more CUV in a CUV market....  I can't see them doing a RWD unibody CUV since GM is cheap and likes to reuse their generic FWD/transverse platforms...

[Robert Hall]

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

It won't cost a lot of money for GM to make a Cadillac XT3 out of existing parts.  

 

Yeah, new body and interior on the Trailblazer/Encore GX platform..that's the GM way...platform sharing, same dirty bits...

Edited February 29, 2020 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

Except there’s zero business case for a teeny Cadillac SUV below the XT4. The 4 is in the sweet spot of the CUV segment, strong enough to pull from above & below it. 
Its nonsensical to propose duplicate SUVs separated by 4 inches in length- there’s no buyer who needs those less 4 inches, and the money is MUCH better spent making an existing entry better the 1,000 other CUVs out there.

Edited March 1, 2020 by balthazar

[G. David Felt]

8 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That leaves room for an XT3 to compete with UX.   Wouldn't surprise me  Given how GM is adding a lot of new CUVs, it wouldn't surprise me if Cadillac doesn't get it's own version of the Encore GX.  Cadillac only has 3 CUVs, compared to Chevy with 6, Buick w/ 4, and GMC with 2...

I doubt it will get an XT3 as GM seems focused to change Cadillac into an EV brand.

They might get an XT3 EV, but I do not see them doing an ICE version.

Only thing is I wonder what Names they will use for their CUV/SUV line.

We know that Escalade will stay at the top in both ICE and EV form.

Other than that, I do wonder what names will be assigned to the EV CUV lineup.

THOUGHTS? ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cadillac_vehicles

In looking at this list that covers all names used in production and concepts, I do think I could see the following for CUV names.

• Cadillac Townsman

I do wonder what the EV cars might be called too. ?

[balthazar]

^ Interesting, isn't it, that the vast vast majority of Cadillac nameplates thru their history were numeric-based.

[G. David Felt]

29 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Interesting, isn't it, that the vast vast majority of Cadillac nameplates thru their history were numeric-based.

Agree that it is interesting. 1965 is when they started to change over to names I see. Though Fleetwood was assigned behind a number before then.

I also thought that Mercedes-Benz use of predominately WXXX for so long before changing up with AXXX, BXXX, CXXX, EXXX and SXXX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mercedes-Benz_vehicles

Interesting that they had a few FXXX in the 90's but never used DXXX. ? Wonder why?

This pretty much proves @smk4565 is wrong about going CT# or XT# is Cadillac coping German brands!

?

[balthazar]

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

This pretty much proves @smk4565 is wrong about going CT# or XT# is Cadillac coping German brands!

Of course, and it was pointed out numerous times.
But, as per SOP; ignored.

[Robert Hall]

43 minutes ago, balthazar said:

^ Interesting, isn't it, that the vast vast majority of Cadillac nameplates thru their history were numeric-based.

You talking about the various Series models from ancient times?    Series 70, Series 62, Series 61, etc?   The only ones used the last 50+ years were Fleetwood Sixty Special and Fleetwood 75 and those haven't been used in decades..

I don't see the correlation between old, forgotten naming schemes and the modern acronyms... I really doubt if marketing resource units in the late 90s/early 00s that started the acronyms had any awareness of long gone naming schemes, they were trying to fit in w/ the Germans.

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[Robert Hall]

21 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Agree that it is interesting. 1965 is when they started to change over to names I see. Though Fleetwood was assigned behind a number before then.

I also thought that Mercedes-Benz use of predominately WXXX for so long before changing up with AXXX, BXXX, CXXX, EXXX and SXXX

 

Actually, with Mercedes the naming scheme prior to the early 90s was a 3 digit displacement number followed by one or more letters  (or not).   The WXXX are internal generational platform codes, not model names.  (like the W126, W140, W220 were three generations of the S-class)... WXXX codes are like GM's codes for the trucks, like GMT360, GMT400, etc.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[G. David Felt]

23 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

You talking about the various Series models from ancient times?    Series 70, Series 62, Series 61, etc?   The only ones used the last 50+ years were Fleetwood Sixty Special and Fleetwood 75 and those haven't been used in decades..

I don't see the correlation between old, forgotten naming schemes and the modern acronyms... I really doubt if marketing resource units in the late 90s/early 00s that started the acronyms had any awareness of long gone naming schemes, they were trying to fit in w/ the Germans.

 

One would think if your in marketing and doing a competent job, you would know your history.

One Would Hope!  

[Robert Hall]

5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

One would think if your in marketing and doing a competent job, you would know your history.

One Would Hope!  

But during the 90s-00s (even back to the 80s on some models like the STS trim) Cadillac was pushing to become a modern international brand, more like the Europeans and moving away from the cushy grandpa mobile image, so something from the 50s and before would likely not have been an influence...

Edited March 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[G. David Felt]

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

But during the 90s-00s Cadillac was pushing to become a modern international brand, more like the Europeans and moving away from the cushy grandpa mobile image, so something from the 50s and before would likely not have been an influence...

See now there you hit the nail on the head.

Moving away from the cushy grandpa mobile. 

All those auto's go back in time and to me grandpa cushy mobile is the letter with numbers and yes names. But if your looking at the history, that would tell me that there was more letters with numbers than names and maybe a new name would be better than letter with numbers.

IMHO  

After all I would rather drive an Escala than a Series 62 or W140 or CTS, CT5, etc.

[Robert Hall]

12 minutes ago, dfelt said:

See now there you hit the nail on the head.

Moving away from the cushy grandpa mobile. 

All those auto's go back in time and to me grandpa cushy mobile is the letter with numbers and yes names. But if your looking at the history, that would tell me that there was more letters with numbers than names and maybe a new name would be better than letter with numbers.

IMHO  

After all I would rather drive an Escala than a Series 62 or W140 or CTS, CT5, etc.

Classic Cadillac names for me that I love are Eldorado, Biarritz, DeVille, Fleetwood, Brougham, Seville....I'd love to see these names over the current acronyms...older names like Series 70 or Series 61 are so far before my time as to have no resonance.  

Edited March 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

I don't see the correlation between old, forgotten naming schemes and the modern naming...

Open your mind.

[smk4565]

6 hours ago, balthazar said:

Except there’s zero business case for a teeny Cadillac SUV below the XT4. The 4 is in the sweet spot of the CUV segment, strong enough to pull from above & below it. 
Its nonsensical to propose duplicate SUVs separated by 4 inches in length- there’s no buyer who needs those less 4 inches, and the money is MUCH better spent making an existing entry better the 1,000 other CUVs out there.

A Cadillac XT3 would outsell the CT4 or CT5 easily and would maybe outsell the Escalade but not have nearly the margins Escalade does.  

[balthazar]

Maybe, but at what cost to the other model lines?
Cadillac does not manufacture in volumes that necessitate being in every vehicle segment. Not EVERY brand can or should be in every segment. Once hyundai is building cars that can be cross-shopped with mercedes, you know the Apocolypse is near. Or Mass Consolidation, whichever comes first.

There's no business case for anything smaller than the XT4 @ Cadillac. IMO, there should be no CT4 (despite some wags believing it makes sense "to line up with the XT4, because '4s' ").

[ocnblu]

I saw a spy shot somewhere of a partially uncovered prototype of the upcoming Cadillac EV CUV.  "Crap DuJour" was spelled out in a beautiful script on the quarter panel.

[surreal1272]

On 2/28/2020 at 7:49 PM, ocnblu said:

Right up to the moment it needs recharged

Yeah, guess it s good thing that gas powered cars forever on a single tank of guess. Wouldn’t want to run out of gas now would we?

 

 

 

[ocnblu]

20 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

tank of guess

No, but if we do, it's great knowing how easy it is getting going again, fully replenished.

400 miles of new possibilities in five minutes. 

[smk4565]

The Lexus UX needs more motor, at least as an option a turbo or the Camry’s 2.5 liter.

[balthazar]

And a transmission. And a ground-up redesign. And a price cut.