5 Ways Lexus May Have Been Able to Save The CT200h
by Chiraag Dave

 

I'll add #6......I said from the start, when I first did my review, that IMO, it should have been marketed as a Toyota instead of a Lexus. Except for the nice NuLuxe upholstery and well-done paint job, it was not, IMO, a true Lexus to start with.

 

Agree with a performance variant. Buying the FSPORT trim should give it a bit boost in power.

And the design of the CT stayed roughly the same throughout the years. The '18 CT actually looks good, and probably had the added Lexus Safety Plus <-- should had been added years ago.

RIP CT200h.

 

This was a car designed for Lexus in Europe and had limited appeal for the US market. Just as the Genesis was designed for the US and Korean market, it was never suited for the European market and failed. The CT200 in the US is a similar story.
Steve

 

First and foremost, it needed more power. People expect any sort of stylized hatch to be a zippy car. Lexus even advertised it that way from the start. Second, it needed to be a sedan. As I have been saying for 20 years, the US does not like hatchbacks. They are associated with cheap, econo-cars of the 70's, during the gas crunches. Audi got this concept after one run of the poor selling A3 hatchabck. Mercedes also learned the hard way with the C.
And I disagree with the editor's comments about an A3's interior feeling and looking like an A8. The A3's interior is plain, minimalistic, lacks any luxury touches, and looks totally different than an A8's. The A8 is plush, luxurious, and laden with a huge array of tech, features, and contrasting trims. The two couldn't be further apart in the Audi family.

 

I didn't have to and didn't go any further than #1.

 

...unless they are butched up to resemble sport utility vehicles.

The following statement says a lot...

Both the QX30 and the GLA are nothing but hatchback cars on higher suspensions, with liberal doses of plastic cladding added to dress them up so that they can be labelled and sold as crossover sport utility vehicles.

This proves how superficial buyers in this segment are: They won't buy hatchbacks but they will buy crossovers.

This may also prove to be the method for saving the CT: Give it a higher suspension, a larger wheel-and-tire combination, some lower cladding and fake underbody shields, and rename it the UX (oh, that is being done, isn't it?).

 

Yes, those models do well and are appealing. Lexus has that covered with the new UX coming. What could have been tapped here is have the new UX and a small sedan like an A3 or CLA. Both those makes do well and Lexus could capitalize on that with a sub executive car.

 

The American market hates hatchbacks. The only ones that sell are hot hatches for the hooner crowd like the Focus RS and Golf GTI and even those don't sell much. I think Lexus were trying their luck bringing a Euro/Japan-focused vehicle over just to see what would happen. Too bad they didn't bring more sporty hybrids like the IS300h and GS300h, those could have sold better than the CT.

 

I agree. Lexus would've been been most successful if they sold an SUV and a compact sedan. There is still a market for sedans in this class for the younger crowd that don't want to be driving around in an SUV just yet.

 

I should have clarified more with that. I meant the Audi didn't fully cheap out on the A3's interior, it came with standard leather and a well appointed interior for what it is and plenty of features(available as options) that they offered on their higher end models. I'm referring to options like virtual cockpit, some of these convenience features inside make the A3 not feel like you bought an Audi just to have an Audi. Lexus didn't even offer a blind spot monitor on the CT as outlined. Even the Mercedes CLA has a pretty disappointing interior compared to what you expect from a Mercedes.

 

Owned the CT and loved it overall as my daily, including the interior refinement. Well built, solid thump in the doors, nice quality dashboard, etc.

Where it lacked was in noise isolation/powertrain refinement (for a Lexus) and of course power. Had it been offered in the more powerful 200t or 300h variants, sales would certainly have been stronger.

 

Same could be said for the 1IS which was more like the Toyota Altezza and not a true Lexus to start with. Any first generation will need improvement because if it came out perfect there wouldn't need to be a second, third, fourth generation and so on. The 2IS was a big improvement over the 1IS and so was the 3IS compared to the 1IS. With that said I'm sure the 2CT will be a big improvement over the 1CT. My CT is much more gas efficient and more reliable than any Buick which isn't truly a luxury brand, Cadillac is the luxury division of GM not Buick...

 

It was, in fact, a rebadged Altezza. No arguments about that. But it was an attempt, at that time, by Lexus to market a serious contender to the BMW 3-series, not a traditional Lexus. In that, it succeeded....and it also helped lower the average age of the Lexus buyer. (though I bought one when I was almost 50 LOL)


On that one, I disagree. I owned a 1Gen IS300 for almost 5 years, and did full-reviews on several different versions of both the 2Gen and 3Gen (including the folding hard-top convertible). I thought the 1Gen was far more solidly-built than either of its two successors, though it did lack the AWD option that came later.


Of course it is. Apples and Oranges. Buick is not in the business of offering super-high-mileage small hybrids.

Right now, though, one of Cadillac's problems IS Buick. While Cadillac is in fact growing, there's no question that Buick siphons off a significant number of sales that would otherwise go to Cadillac....and Cadillac is going to lose even more sales when Buick expands its luxury Avenir trim-level availability.

 

I also don't think of Buick as a luxury marque; near luxury? Sure, although not in the same league as the tier one luxury makes -- at least in North America. China? Different story.

As for Avenir, if a marque needs a subdivision created in an effort to bring the marque upmarket, then that marque is not upmarket to begin with.