545 / 540 / GS 400

If I were in the position of needing or wanting one for reasons of size I
would, probably, prefer a small 'normal' car, even second-hand, but the
Smart does have its merits. Very spacious seating. Ability to change panels
easily. Funky cabrio. Very short. Very easy to drive and park because no
extensions front and rear. If storage space needs are low it's an eminently
useful vehicle.

However, on a 'global' basis the car still isn't making any money, though in
cities like London it seems to be selling quite well. Recently I read that
it was an immediate hit in Rome and Paris.

I drove one a few months ago, deliberately choosing the smallest engine.
It's not bad at all and doesn't feel like a 'microcar', with quite a high
seating position. My neighbours have a Brabus edition (as well as a giant
Range Rover) and are very satisfied with it. Personally I question the
sense of the Brabus as it just about doubles the price of the car and you
get into the hotly contested super mini and other small car territory such
as VW and Audi.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
...
[.......]
>
> Stupid, because its advantages are minimal over a proper small
> car. You need an actual parling space to park it and a full lane to go
> through, not like a motorcycle. I fondly remember a Smart parked in a
> non-space with a parking ticket, as it should be because it was
> partially blocking a pedestrian crosswalk.
>
> I don't have any direct experience in the driving one sense. But I've
> lived in a very congested city with quite a few of them, and I was
> never capable to see any advantage over say a Nissan Micra or a VW
> Lupo.
>
> --
> Ignasi.
> '90 325is
> (using SPAM trap e-mail address)

If you're not able to detect the difference 5 seconds after you turn
the key, you never will. Make the bold executive decision and sign the
lease for the Lexus now.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:32:06 -0400, "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@'remove this
to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote:

>But you must admit that Lexus is NOT a car company. There is no "Lexus"
>manufacturer, etc. It is a marketing front (read ploy) to sell Toyotas for
>way more than the public would pay for a car with a Toyota badge on it.
>Sure other companies do/ did it too. But that does not absolve them from
>trying to (at least partly) pull the wool over the eyes of the collective
>public.

That's not entirely fair. The Lexus and Infinity brands are, in
general, properly engineered (read: RWD), while the Toyotas are FWD
junk. You could argue that this is this trend, with RWD cars being
relegated to the "upscale" lines, is not a "good thing", but the fact
is the cars are different...

On 18 Sep 2004 18:34:49 -0700, (Michael Low)
wrote:

>I would agree with you on the minor difference in the relative ages of
>BMW and Toyota. However, I believe Himes was referring to the
>generation of performance-minded cars put out by BMW - you know, the
>"Ultimate Drving Machine" idea. OTOH I am at a loss to detect any
>such lineage or "tradition" with Toyota. I think even Datsun (Nissan)
>has had a much more sporting history in production cars than Toyota.

Screw "lineage". If they make a competitive product, it's worth
buying.

>So the Lexus brand comes off a bit shallow especially given the nature
>of Lexus cars to be overly insulated and dull to drive. Believe me I
>know, there is a Lexus with a dead battery sitting in my father's
>parking spot in the garage.

Key word in my line above is "if", of course...

>Someone mentioned the IS300 and I agree that is the closest one to a
>sporting drive but Lexus has neglected to improve upon it and it has
>been "overtaken" by other Japanese makes. So there isn't much
>sports-minded support behind the GS 400. I think it's just a larger
>ES300 with a bigger engine and stiffer chassis.

Being so wrong about this makes your opinions not very weighty.

Agreed, Lexus is Toyota. Toyota has a history going back generations.

Of course it is an expensive Toyota. Lexus has more expensive content than
Toyota branded cars (in general, I exclude the - sainted - Supra TT). The
mystifying thing to me is that you think that a Lexus being a Toyota is in
some way bad. It's not, it's a very good thing.

As the man who owns one if owning an up-scale Toyota is a bad thing, unless
you just want to remain ignorant in a cherished prejudice. We've had an
LS400 for eleven years (same car). Very satisfied. If it had said Toyota on
the rear deck, I'd have been just as happy...and the car would have been
still worth every penny we paid.

- GRL


"himes" > wrote in message
om...
> pointless, absurd, comparison. bmw has a history going back
> generations. lexus is what?...just another re-labeled expensive
> toyota.

Not a good argument. If you look at the stickers on a Lexus you will find
Toyota listed as the manufacturer. I'll bet Acura and Infiniti don't hide
their parentage, either. Besides, when was the last time you talked to
anybody who did not know that Lexus is a Toyota brand, etc.? When the brands
launched this was not hidden from anyone. There was no "slick" marketing.
Their was intelligent marketing at launch (except for Infiniti's which was
just weird.)

Further, with all three Japanese up-scale brands the parent companies wanted
to create a much higher level of dealer service for the clients than could
be supported in their main outlets.

How about Mini? And now Bentley and Rolls Royce?


GRL

"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@'remove this to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote in
message ...
>
> "Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (himes) writes:
> > > pointless, absurd, comparison. bmw has a history going back
> > > generations. lexus is what?...just another re-labeled expensive
> > > toyota.
> >
> > What a dumb argument. If it held any weight we should all be driving
> > Mercedes or Fords.
>
>
> Dumb, perhaps... (I am not the poster)
>
> But you must admit that Lexus is NOT a car company. There is no "Lexus"
> manufacturer, etc. It is a marketing front (read ploy) to sell Toyotas
for
> way more than the public would pay for a car with a Toyota badge on it.
> Sure other companies do/ did it too. But that does not absolve them from
> trying to (at least partly) pull the wool over the eyes of the collective
> public.
>
> Slick 'marketing front" marquees:
>
> Acura
> Lexus
> Infinity
>
> others?
>
> -Fred W
>
>
>

Toyota? Junk?

Have you taken total leave of your senses or are you just recently emerged
from under a rock you've been under for half a century?

Junk? Hilarious!

- GRL

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:32:06 -0400, "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@'remove this
> to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >But you must admit that Lexus is NOT a car company. There is no "Lexus"
> >manufacturer, etc. It is a marketing front (read ploy) to sell Toyotas
for
> >way more than the public would pay for a car with a Toyota badge on it.
> >Sure other companies do/ did it too. But that does not absolve them from
> >trying to (at least partly) pull the wool over the eyes of the collective
> >public.
>
> That's not entirely fair. The Lexus and Infinity brands are, in
> general, properly engineered (read: RWD), while the Toyotas are FWD
> junk. You could argue that this is this trend, with RWD cars being
> relegated to the "upscale" lines, is not a "good thing", but the fact
> is the cars are different...
>

It never ceases to amaze me how clueless BMW people are about the Japanese
cars they seem to detest so much.

The IS is being updated with an entirely new design (from engine on up) for
2006. The GS is in no way related to the ES. The ES is a (arguably) a tarted
up Camry, a FWD car. The GS is RWD and wholly unrelated in design. Wholly.

Remember the Toyota 2000 sports car of the '60's? Remember the Toyota Supra
of the '80's? The (sainted) Supra TT super car of the '90's. Granted, not a
huge heritage, but a respectable one of quite sporting
machinery...especially the TT.

Another thing, all you BMW and Merc guys out there should be grateful that
Lexus and the other Japanese high-priced spread brands came along. BMW and
Mercedes were building expensive, unreliable crap (with a heritage) before
these brands came along and taught luxury car buyers that you don't have to
put up with that sort of nonsense any more. The improvements that you see in
Beemer and Merc quality are a direct result of that rude awakening they got
in the late '80's early '90's, although there has been some back-sliding of
late. You make not like the Japanese brands, but you have benefited from
their existence. Show some appreciation.


GRL
"Michael Low" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
>...
> > You're obviously aggrieved about something, but I should like to ask
what
> > you mean.
> >
> > BMW is essentially a jumped-up motorcycle manufacturer from 1948 that
was
> > almost bought up by Mecedes-Benz when it was on the brink of bankruptcy
in
> > the fifties... :-)
> >
> > Ok, engine and aircraft manufacture goes back to 1916, but Toyota isn't
that
> > much younger, going back to about 1935/7. So Lexus is a brand name. So
> > what?
>
> I would agree with you on the minor difference in the relative ages of
> BMW and Toyota. However, I believe Himes was referring to the
> generation of performance-minded cars put out by BMW - you know, the
> "Ultimate Drving Machine" idea. OTOH I am at a loss to detect any
> such lineage or "tradition" with Toyota. I think even Datsun (Nissan)
> has had a much more sporting history in production cars than Toyota.
>
> So the Lexus brand comes off a bit shallow especially given the nature
> of Lexus cars to be overly insulated and dull to drive. Believe me I
> know, there is a Lexus with a dead battery sitting in my father's
> parking spot in the garage.
>
> Someone mentioned the IS300 and I agree that is the closest one to a
> sporting drive but Lexus has neglected to improve upon it and it has
> been "overtaken" by other Japanese makes. So there isn't much
> sports-minded support behind the GS 400. I think it's just a larger
> ES300 with a bigger engine and stiffer chassis. You never know where
> Toyota will take it. Of course, a few years ago we would never have
> expected Bangled designs either.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> >
> > DAS
> > --
> > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> > ---
> >
> > "himes" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > pointless, absurd, comparison. bmw has a history going back
> > > generations.
> > [............]

The Avalon is a FWD design based on the Camry. No relation to the GS. Come
on people, get it straight!


GRL

"bfd" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michael Low wrote:
> > I would agree with you on the minor difference in the relative ages
> of
> > BMW and Toyota. However, I believe Himes was referring to the
> > generation of performance-minded cars put out by BMW - you know, the
> > "Ultimate Drving Machine" idea. OTOH I am at a loss to detect any
> > such lineage or "tradition" with Toyota. I think even Datsun
> (Nissan)
> > has had a much more sporting history in production cars than Toyota.
> >
> Well, Toyota did come out with its 2000GT way back around 1967 (a
> convertible version was used in You Only Live Twice), it was the
> prelude for the Datsun 240Z. Toyota "TRD" has been around for a long
> time and I recall it was a response to Datsun's "Competition
> Department" aka Datsun Comp
>
> > So the Lexus brand comes off a bit shallow especially given the
> nature
> > of Lexus cars to be overly insulated and dull to drive. Believe me I
> > know, there is a Lexus with a dead battery sitting in my father's
> > parking spot in the garage.
> >
> Agree, even "L-Tuned" or "TRD'ed", Lexus/Toyota cars don't come close
> to how a BMW drives.
>
> > Someone mentioned the IS300 and I agree that is the closest one to a
> > sporting drive but Lexus has neglected to improve upon it and it has
> > been "overtaken" by other Japanese makes. So there isn't much
> > sports-minded support behind the GS 400. I think it's just a larger
> > ES300 with a bigger engine and stiffer chassis. You never know where
> > Toyota will take it. Of course, a few years ago we would never have
> > expected Bangled designs either.
> >
> >
> No, GS400 is not a larger ES300. Unlike the front drive ES300 (e.g.,
> Toyota Camry platform), its actually a rear drive car with V8 and based
> on the larger Avalon platform. With its 300hp V8 engine, the GS400 is
> Lexus supposed answer to E39 BMW 540i. However, as stated above, even
> "L-Tuned", it doesn't come close to the way BMW's rides, handles or
> drive. MAYBE, Lexus will come out with something more competitive in
> 2006, but that's a big MAYBE....
>

The IS300 does not drive quite as well as a 330i (drove both consecutively).
It's only real negatives are that it is a little small and the six, while a
good one, is not a modern design and power is marginal. We'll see if they
fix things in 2006. Sure hope so. An IS with jut a bit more room and 260 hp
(same handling as now) would be extremely attractive for the person looking
for a sporting sedan. Extremely.


GRL

"bfd" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ramone Cila wrote:
> > "bfd" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "GRL" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > As always, Lexus makes cars that are plush, very well appointed,
> and
> > > > extremely reliable, but not very exciting to drive. BMW makes
> cars that
> > > are
> > > > a kick to drive, but have more maintenance hassles.
> > > >
> > > Agree, the current lineup of lexus are down right boring and not
> too fun
> > to
> > > drive. BMW kills them in that respect.
> > >
> > > > If Lexus would hire a few ex-BMW chassis designers and turn them
> loose
> > and
> > > > start offering manual gear boxes they would eat BMW's market
> share. This
> > > is
> > > > not on their radar, though.
> > > >
> > > Don't be too sure of this, BMW is in their range:
> > >
> > > http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100820
> >
> > Lexus has a very good thing going in the luxury division, and with
> everyone
> > and their brother looking to be a BMW I think the Lexus share in the
> pure
> > luxury division will grow. I cannot think of a single reason to
> abandon that
> > for a segment (BMW type sport sedans) that will be more hotly
> contested year
> > after year.
> >
> > There is a majority of drivers and buyers who don't want BMW's. I
> find it
> > strange so many manufacturers are chasing the BMW archetype. There
> are only
> > so many people who want cars that ride a bit rougher, make a bit more
> noise
> > and compress the driver passenger space in exchange for superior
> handling
> > and dynamics.
>
> Based on the autoweek article above, it appears Lexus/Toyota may be
> seeing an opening left by BMW with its controversial styling and overly
> complex electronics. Let's face it, even BMW's idrive/nav system is
> inferior to the Toyota/Honda touch screen version.
>
> IF Lexus can make a car "drive" like a BMW, is the IS300 a good
> example?, then they might have something. Again, its a big "maybe" as
> to whether Lexus or any other mfr are willing to commit the resources
> necessary to do so.
>