rogers2

PatSoxfan you make a great point. While you have a nicely equip vehicle and a bare bone S550 does offer a lot standard features.

At the same time your car is definitely missing a few options I probably couldn't do without. IMO I figure since I’m already spending over 100k. I probably should throw in the kit or the Burmester surround sound. The split view front seat entertainment sound nice too. That's one thing I luv about the CL or S coupe. MB usually package the car with more options included. Of course you pay for it.

SW13GS I fully understand what you mean by on average the S550 is simply going to cost more.

PatsSoxfan

Ok, the argument is settled.

I ordered my S550 with the options that wanted/needed. I don't really care about making the back seat passengers enjoy incredible comfort since I rarely have back seat passengers. Additionally, I saw no need to pay an extra $6K for the 3D Burmester system. The standard Burmester surround sound is great by itself and I believe better than the Mark Levinson option on the LS. I considered the Split View command screen but I saw no real need for it. Besides, the resolution on the Split View is lower than on the standard screen. That iced it for me. I specifically wanted the standard 18 inch wheels since I am more concerned about comfort than looks. The 18 inch wheels look good enough for me. I also gave zero consideration to the Magic Body Control (MBC) which costs another $6K or so since I need the 4Matic (AWD). MBC is not available with 4Matic. Besides, the airmatic suspension is fantastic as is. That's about it.

PatsSoxfan

Please read my response to SW above. Thanks.

Carmaker1

Excellent points raised by PatsSoxFan and SW13GS. The price differential and content availability between the LS and S-Class is pertinent example of how Lexus could take it another level on the next model. It sat out a redesign for secret, but excellent reasons. Just like the next RX, I believe Lexus will moderately raise prices on upcoming redesigns, without going too high to further extinguish past Toyota-visible roots.

yowps3

The 5LS better make us all drool

Nostrafatu

On the LS Lexus needs to be More aggressive in its design, the technology is there to make it as smooth as it is while offering "sleeper" sports performance.

Carmaker1

This might not be entirely correct, but hopefully something. According to "insiders" related to Tesla (or close enough enough), body design of the next LS is already past complete and that as some have already said here, Toyota will "shock the world" with it. The tech being employed is "light years ahead" of everyone else and revolutionary.

Tesla indeed is of great importance to Lexus concerning it, more than the S-Class. Apparently Akio Toyoda "paid" Elon Musk $50 million sometime ago and was given a Tesla. Tesla personnel have been also taken back to Aichi HQ to observe a number of projects, as well as study the LFA. A performance model was also reported by this "source", which hints towards an LS-F. Take some of this with a grain of salt though.

In addition to that, some "less valid" statements have alluded to it aligning more with the Quattroporte/XJ/Panamera than S-Class/7er/A8. We all know the answer to that last theory honestly, as I doubt they'll be abandoning their core buyers.

doge

The design language is fine, you don't want to make to flashy or you'll loose sales. Remember cars of this echelon are bought people that are more reserved.

PatsSoxfan

If Toyota does indeed "shock the world with it" and the tech will be "light years ahead" of everyone else and revolutionary, then I will once again be an LS owner.

hlee12

keep LS conservative. want something really out there?

make something like this, but more of a7/panamera direction

rominl

iTrader: (4)

manufacturers usually have the cars "done" years before people see it

the current w222 s class, i actually first saw the car (at least most of the exterior details) way back in 2009. of course still tons of road testing and most importantly, electronics (which changes much faster) to go in.

so given the new ls is coming soon, i am sure lexus pretty much have the big part of the car done already, not it's a lot of fine tuning

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Yes, something also about current cars are some 4 years behind what is being worked on internally, so while it's new now by the time it's released it's actually dated.

LFA keys anyone

LexFather

Porsche is supposedly almost done with the new 911 exterior. They worked on it the day after the 991 debuted. Supposed to be radical FYI...

I agree that when a car debuts, clearly it has been at work for sometime, the design usually signed off ages ago.

mordecai

I actually agree with you. Making the LS more like a coupe-like sedan will make it lose much of its identity.

What was the famous quote by the LS400 engineer? Something about keeping in touch with your past or else your car won't create some sort of tradition or prestige. Someone had it in their signature before. If anything, I'd venture to push the GS maybe as a A7/Panamera competitor. Its sales will never reach 5-series/E-class levels, and it's already falling behind the A6. Why not push it in a different direction? It is the sportiest car in its class and its identity is more malleable than the LS in my opinion.

If those rumors of LS transformation is true, then maybe this is an LS mule:

Carmaker1

Thank you, but I'm well aware of this (design eng.). Outside of some of us here, most people prove quite detrimentally ignorant of these things. Prior to beginning my profession, as a teenager and uni student, I started to carefully study the development patterns of various automakers.

I had gotten tired of magazines and bloggers saying, "[X] 2006 model just came out, so they obviously copied similar looking (Y)'s 2005 model. In such a case, it happened to be [X] company finalised [X]'s design, 1-2 years before (Y) was out in 2004, so any accusations would be unfounded and ignorant assumptions.

Not only that marketing departments and spokespeople, tend give out nonfactual, potentially misleading story tales about development timelines. For example, "We decided to build [X] model after showing X concept car and brought it to production in just 9 months!"

The LS may have entered development any time between 2008 and 2010, but critically, when the development team begins working with finalised styling and production body dimensions, this has been an area Toyota naturally keeps close as possible to launch. The 1995 LS400 (XF20), was finalised in 1992, the same year the original LS400 facelift was launched. The LS430's basic design concept was approved in late 1997, being production identical in 1998 as Mark Levinson partnered with them.

The current model was something reached done with in 2004 and current facelift was done 6 years later, being first photographed in 2011. All have in common, taking less than 3 years for a new model. Toyota have never been the type to take forever on that, even with the LFA. Unusually the 100-Series 1998 Land Cruiser took 42-44 months from design freeze in 1994 and similarly the LX570 (URJ200) between early 2005 and late 2007.

I get the idea that many believe the LFA design was never changed after the 2005 or 2007 concepts, yet barely reached the final design in 2008. The very first prototypes of the real LFA showed up in spring 2009 and Motomatchi got busy with series production nearly 2 years later. The original was reported to have been done by November 2004 and due in late 2006, then being delayed due to CFRP replacing aluminum.

If you don't mind me asking, how you exactly did you see the W222 in 2009? Basic design approval was that year and this spring 2009 photo shows chief designer, Gorden Wagener (he did the W221), with the original W222 lead designer, Il-hun Yoon next to a 1:3 scale model. It actually took 12 weeks to build the W222 in 1:1 scale clay and the overall program for it began in 2006, for a scheduled late 2012 release.



No prototypes nor W222-related test mules were built until 2010 (public testing from December 2010), but only as design mockups in 2009. Were you part of an S-Class marketing clinic for existing owners? That's the only way I can see someone viewing a 1:1 design model that early. I hope this isn't taken offensively, as I'm only curious.

In regards to 4 years, that can be true regarding overall development program, power train, and technical components. As for the design aspect, that's still quite excessive if something was designed until mid-2010 and barely arrived today.

Production identical designs (vs. concept/raw designer vision) have to be timed very well, especially in becoming off-limits for any further changes. No premium brand wants to be required to jump hoops regarding futurity of a design and it remaining timeless for another 25 vs 20 years from approval date.

Only through the 1980s-early '90s was a 4-year approved design-to-production standard still in place with American and European automakers.Thanks to the 1980s-early '90s Japanese onslaught, many companies shortened development times on program length and post-design development-to-showroom. Nissan went bankrupt by 1999, in part due to them spending another 29.5 months to get a finalised design into production, AFTER approving the theme/concept months earlier. Ghosn's cost-cutting and platform consolidation eliminated that problem. A new Toyota/Lexus modular RWD platform might come into place regarding this.

For example. BMW moved from 72 months to their current 60-month program format on the E46 3-Series from late 1992 and shortened series development of the E38 7-Series to 36 months between 1991-1994. E38 project began overall in January 1988. The last BMW finished before Chris Bangle came.

The preceding BMW E32 program took them almost 7 years between Sept. 1979 to mid-1986. 1983 to 1986 was spent on developing the E32 for production, with December 1984 requiring a costly redo on the E32 body design. I used BMW as an example, as they the fastest among the German 3. The LS400 program began in early 1984, with basic design concept in 1986 and freeze in early May 1987. A successful template followed to this day on all LS generations.

Due to various considerations, it is unacceptable for a development program to freeze vehicle body and interior designs too early at 4 years. Changes in design trends/company language, higher development costs (time = money), safety standards, or moderate datedness can become a problem. Most of them now work with no longer than 30-36 months, unless delays come into place. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have successfully bested others based on this. You can have a new Lexus production exterior/interior approved 18 months to 2 years before it hits the showroom, versus about 3 years at Mercedes-Benz or Audi.

Personally, at Jaguar one hopes to not make the same mistake on the next XJ-Series as done with the XJ40 and the ground-up, yet retro last generation X350. They both became eventually outdated and outclassed in being designed way too early. The XJ40 launched in late 1986, had its roots in the '70s and was identical to the production model by February 1980. The X350 was designed mostly by late 1997, yet came out in mid-2003. Ian Callum took over design 4 years before it came out, yet his predecessor was responsible for it. Work on that is very active right now.

I think we've all long been aware of years being behind new models, but some do get the false impression that last minute changes (let's say 6-12 months) are allowable and can happen so easily. The 2-3ish years, needed to engineer and package production parts and components into a new body and test/correct them in various prototype phases, requires that fixed dimensions are in place well ahead of time. Changing any millimeter on a frozen design, costs tens to hundreds of millions in pounds/euros/dollars and delays. Minor trimming changes, such as lighting and model grade can be done until the prototype stage (final evaluation phase) before pilot production. Usually this when design patents will be filed.

You understand this very well, but we both often come across others who do not on CL and elsewhere. They might complain about why X car didn't resemble its concept, when sometimes the concept car was erected after the production car was signed-off and no further changes were even permitted (see Subaru WRX). This example is why a facelift variant may better interpret the looks of a model generation's previewing concept car than the initial version.

As for the 991 replacement, not surprising. VAG employs a very long gestation period from VW to Bentley of usually 36-42 months on average and 66-72 month program/project. Both American and European generally require such approvals a bit earlier than Japanese brands, which is why the latter had shorter life cycles until recently. I do not believe that they literally got started on a replacement when the 991 went on sale, as some lead time is needed to assess product plans for a successor and resource allotment.