dunnojack

i'm talking about the regular volume selling sedans and their tech.

that's what msnbc is comparing.
not the low volume specialty cars like the ISF or super low volume supercars like the LFA.

nonlux cars are busting out with the lux tech, that it makes some reconsider whether or not to buy a lux branded car

LexFather

Looking at sales figures, the ES and IS are doing extremely well for older models with "less tech" that you speak of. Maybe the other car makers need to try harder? Maybe buyers don't really need or care or require this extra tech? Clearly other merits matter if both cars are doing well and outselling the brand new TL which positions itself as a tech car.

The new HS is the most technologically advanced car in the 30k-40k price range (45k loaded).

pagemaster

I have to agree here. With the lower end Lexus' like the ES, IS and HS..they do fine with features and design. It is the top end Lexus' models like the LS and GS which need to go to the next level like similar to the S-Class.

It is a shame that Lexus did not bring the mouse controller to the market with the LS or GS but instead debuted it on the lower level models. Even the Genesis has this feature while the GS does not.

You can tell Lexus does realize the most important money right now is in the IS and ES category. Lexus has spent so much working on the IS. I like the IS it has grown on me and represents the best value at Lexus.

pagemaster

There were times back in the late 90's and up until 2005 when Lexus would win comparos without being the fastest on the road. The GS right now is a 5th place.....maybe 4th place finisher at best.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, I guess if you compare the v8 versions of these cars, the GS460 is rather lack luster.

But if you compare the volume sellers with V6 engines, GS350 is on top of the class.

dunnojack

a car doesn't win by engine comparison only.

I didn't buy a lexus for its engine.
and right now, there are other engines equal or better- GM's 3.6L DI and infiniti's 3.7L, which should have DI soon.

IS-SV

A lot of things won't be the same when the smoke clears from this recession, luxury car market included which is fine with me.

LexFather

Ridiculous. The LS has done wonders and has reached a level no one thought a Japanese brand could attain. 460, AWD, LWB, 600h L, self parking, reclining rear seat option, LED option, etc etc...

Again the GS has the GS 450h and no one else in class competes. I agree the 3GS is no homerun but its not as poor as some make it seem.
Yeah when the media was more fair. Today many of us recognize its a bunch of wanna be Jerermy Clarksons and toilet tissue writing.

Agreed.

mmarshall

This is nothing new, Mike. Car and Driver/Road and Track have always been very sport-oriented in their actual reviews and comparisons.......other enthusiast magazines, too, but to a lesser extent. I've always liked the C&D columns and editorials, though......with the exception of Brock Yates (who is now gone) they have generally been fair and well-written. R&T is more track-oriented then C&D (hence, its title), and, while not ignoring everyday street cars, spends too much time on ultra-fast, exotic sports cars.

LexFather

Today they are all trash in regards to American mags. In the past they used to have comparos where the goals of the car were different so the review was different. Starting around 2000 or so, every gotdamn review became a contest on who is the sportiest vehicle.

Subsequently, Lexus has responded to this media crying, making their vehicles sportier and its still not good enough.

If I want a Porsche or BMW, I'll buy one. I like what Lexus has done just fine and I like the IS-F and F-sport parts.

mmarshall

Well, to some extent, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I've made a lot of posts, here on CL, criticizing the tendency of automakers, today, to make most of their "luxury" cars into sport sedans. Lexus is just joining the crowd.

There are some signs, however, that some customers may have had enough of this constant trand towards sportiness. A few new vehicles, for 2010, actually use taller-profile tires and less-harsh suspension than their previous versions. Both the Lexus RX350 and non-turbo verions of the new Legacy/Outback have bumped their tire size up to 60-series from 55. On the new RX, though, the softer tires are accompanied by a new double-wishbone suspension that adds a slight amount of stiffness to compensate.

Lil4X

A good portion of auto buyers are still unaware of several industry facts that are now coming to light.

• Styling is not always driven by beauty, it is driven by popularity, and popularity is driven by marketing. People spend money on what makes them look good, not necessarily what they think looks good. Witness any AMG Mercedes.
  
  If the 1963-1/2 Mustang had been introduced in Ford Falcon trim (beneath the skin, it was mechanically identical to the Ford Falcon Sprint of 1963), it would have never set a single sales record, let alone shattered all sales records for domestic cars for the next several years. It was the fresh approach to marketing an affordable sports car, and the attendant market image that rubbed off on buyers of the Mustang.
  
  
• Styling is often determined by manufacturing issues. You can produce some pretty stunning drawings, but if you can't form sheet metal to that beautiful shape accurately and at low cost, your manufacturing costs soon overtake your budget, and instead of producing a new generation Gull-Wing coupe, you wind up with something like another Lambo-door custom.
  
  Mercedes' unique SL doors were not a styling statement, although they would always bear a "performance" image - they were necessitated by the fact that driver and passenger sat inside a pair of MASSIVE frame rails that have been made unnecessary by computer stress analysis. While the Gullwing was a unique and desirable feature, it was evidence of a huge design compromise. It ended up being hugely expensive to produce, what with the hinge and torsion bar assembly needed to lift the heavy doors, and an unreasonable compromise needed to enclose a roadster for GP racing.
  
  
• If you are going to produce in volume, you cut every corner you can. You have to be able to tool up for production, then move the line at sufficient speed to fill orders produced by marketing. There's some cachet in having a car that is difficult to obtain (like today's Camaro), but if you can't deliver, you lose your market opportunity and in a year or so, your market has moved on to the next shiny bauble.
  
  
• Third-party products like air bags, brakes, HVAC, audio, and telematics are usually developed by outside industries and contracted by the automaker. If they can shave a penny from production of maybe two million units, they have earned $20 thousand dollars at no cost. See what that does to your profitability numbers. In this economy, that's huge for a small supplier. How and where are you going to shave that penny? Easiest to put the arm on your suppliers, to cut material and assembly costs, pushing the problem upstream in your supply chain. That's a balancing act - your suppliers have to make a profit too, and you're dead without them.

The auto industry has benefited by the leaps in microprocessor technolgoy of the last few years. Not only can new features be made available at far less cost than years ago, new CNC machining centers can cut iron at less cost and far greater accuracy than years ago. Example: My 1995 Civic EX Sedan had a 1.6L 4-cyl engine with four valves per cylinder, dual overhead cams, fuel injection, computerized engine controls, electronic ignition, that produced 125 hp at 6700rpm. It drove through a 5-speed all synchro transmission, dual wishbone suspension front and rear, with antilock 4-wheel disc brakes. Comforts included standard A/C, power locks, power windows, and moonroof, a fine little audio system, and a relatively plush interior. It regularly delivered 36MPG on the highway (without the AC running).

Compare that to a GP car of the '60's or '70's. That Civic, one of our lowliest economy cars, offered more sheer technology, engineering, and efficiency that a car that would have cost two hundred times more (in constant dollars) only a generation before.

At some point we realized that "sport" relates to more styling than performance. We cannot use ten percent of an F1 car's capability on the street, and probably not much more of a GT3 car. We buy far more performance than we can use, and THAT's where I believe we will see changes in automotive products. We are going to have to get realistic with our expectations.

We need several types of automobiles - let's leave light trucks and all-out sports cars aside for the moment. We need a small, low cost, comfortable commuter that will whisk us to work in the morning reliably and economically. We need a family hauler that can get us down the highway with four kids and all their gear, and still deliver reasonable economy and a high level of reliability. Tradesmen still need their trucks, and those of us suffering a mid-life crisis need our top-down roadsters, but those are separate markets.

For that reason, I believe the future for American automakers will be in vehicles that resemble the Lexus HS 250h, the Buick/Mazda crossovers and Chrysler minivans. That's going to take a LOT of marketing.

mmarshall

While popular with enthusiasts, though, AMG products don't necessarily make people look good with most of society. They are very expensive, powerful, use an enormous amount of gas by today's standards (every one of them has a Federal Gas-Guzzler tax), and, among non-SUV's, are probably considered the ultimate in political incorrectness.

What was behind the original Mustang's explosive popularity was not necessarily the idea that it was a sports car, or even an "affordable" one, but its extremely handsome looks....it was truly one of the best-looking American cars of all time. But, underneath the handsome body/interior, as you point out, it was nothing but a Falcon chassis.....with the Falcon's relatively poor handling and reliability.

This is true, but it is also true, IMO, that many automakers seem to be emphasizing electronics to an inordinate degree....to the point where they often ignore other important car-related issues. I, myself, don't necesssarily care how many electronic features a car has if it has tinny sheet metal and in interior full of cheap, flimsy materials. Ride comfort, especially in the "luxury" vehicle class, seems to be neglected more and more each year as automakers worship at the altar of sportiness, with firmer and firmer chassis/tires....although there are a couple of signs that that may be about to change.

And even more electronic features, IMO, are not always a good thing. For instance, I have never liked BMW's I-Drive or Audi's MMI..........and I still don't.

madoka

Since when did MB cut the prices another $5K on the E Class? Edmunds still shows the base price as $48,600.

LexFather

I did read that part and it confused me as well...