By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It is pouring cats and dogs here. Then, I am going to watch the Louis Vuitton semi-finals to the America's Cup regates (at a TV set—it is better than living in Valencia
I suspect that BMW Oracle (USA) and Iberdrola (Spain) are going to loose 5-1 today to the Luna Rossa (Italy) and Fly Emirates (New Zealand), respectively.
Jose
I hope I haven't posted anything to give the impression that I ever thought for a minute that the LWB LS would sell or even be produced in larger numbers than the SWB. As I replied to Dewey's post, I was actually under the impression that everyone here was clear about it from the very start... that is until cyclone4 just posted that he was surprised to learn the actual ratio.
Lexus announced early on that they would be maufacturing the LWB LS in the 30% range. It was a pre-determined fact... not something that happened through the sales demand process. Now, THAT could change slightly in the future, but it seems unlikely, as I'm sure Lexus is paying attention to the actual demand for the car in the LWB.
So, yes... I can see where you would be surprised. The ratio favoring the standard wheelbase is historically typical, and most posters here would likely have been aware of that.
Now, I have posted in the past that I believe the LWB, loaded, represents a value among LWB cars, and within the LS lineup, especially as compared to the LS600hL.
Cyclone - Glad that you are getting the LS460L. I hope the '08 has all the features that you are after.
TagMan
BTW, I'm not so sure about that predetermined 30% figure because I remember chatter last year about the The LWB being produced in much greater quantity. I don't recall whether that actually came from Lexus or from optimistic Lexus fans.
;-)
You are healthy to the core!
Sometimes my problem is RECOGNIZING my mistake, not a problem admitting it. :confuse: (at least that what my wife tells me once in a while...
BTW, I'm not so sure about that predetermined 30% figure because I remember chatter last year about the The LWB being produced in much greater quantity.
Well, someone would have to pull up the press releases and stuff, but I do somehow recall that Lexus had announced the LWB to be about 30%. Oh well... academic at this point.
TagMan
Stage manager: "Doc, you're on!!"
;-)
LWB?
SWB?
IMO?
C&D?
Short Wheel Base
In My Opinion
Car and Driver...as in magazine.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The Relentless Pursuit for Lithium Ion Batteries will make high mileage and performance possible. Unfortunately we are going to have to wait awhile until that happens.
Then again maybe you are not of the Japanese mindset since unlike you many Japanese do consider 21 MPG as fuel efficient
Evidently consolidation and mergers in the auto industry is not exactly the solution for most auto makers. Even Nissan-Renault are beginning to show some signs of fatigue.
Daimler's Mercedes to emulate BMW strategy: paper
Sun May 20, 12:50 PM
Email Story IM Story Printable View
Enlarge Photo
(Reuters)FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Burned by its failed merger with Chrysler , parent Daimler has decided to forgo all acquisitions for its luxury brand Mercedes-Benz, emulating the go-it-alone strategy of rival BMW after it sold off Rover.
"There are no acquisition targets I can recognize that could strengthen Mercedes," Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche told German Sunday newspaper Welt am Sonntag.
The Daimler chief, who just days ago sealed a deal to sell its loss-making U.S. unit Chrysler to private equity firm Cerberus, sees little to gain from trying to diversify risks by balancing its brand portfolio with another leading marque.
"We are at the top of the industry with the Mercedes car brand - any integration of another brand would tend to drag us down ... There is nothing to win from it either for the (Mercedes) brand or for the profitability," Zetsche said in another Sunday paper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
"The Daimler AG will be a company that offers exciting vehicles in the premium segment, remains highly profitable, is the most attractive employer, and greatly pleases its customers and shareholders with top products and services," he told the Welt am Sonntag.
Ever since BMW sold its UK unit Rover in 2000 for a pittance after pumping billions into the company, Daimler's archrival has charted a fiercely independent path, propagating a philosophy that close mergers and alliances only weaken a brand's profile.
link title
DrFill
Next year will be an exciting one for you...I`m glad to read you are of the suv thing for the moment...I personally just don`t think you will be happy in anything but the bmw 5, or possibly and audi ..I found audi to be difficult to purchase--therefore BMW rules....I do want to caution everone about the extra nusances with deasel---particularly us little older Gentlemen--Although on paper they make sense--in real life it is different...One thing for you, when driving the spirited bmw for fun--drive the eighteen miles to the nearest diesel pump and just check it out up close and personal...Two years can be a long time...Your friend Tony
Lamborghini Gallardo, Lamborghini Murciélago, Audi R8, Porsche C4S, Porsche 911 Turbo...
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
The thing is, I can't trust my wife with a RWD car in the winter, even if it does have snows, and the LS seems like a very attractive proposition for her. I'm stuck with the $105,000 LS600hL, then. I'm not terribly worried about the price, as I would lease her car (I buy mine), but it just may be a tad too big to easily maneuver in and out of our garage. An LS460 SWB AWD would be ideal, or even just an LS600h, which we're not getting on this side of the pond.
Any insiders here who know something?
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
Yes indeed! I am looking forward to 2008!
I expect to drive a BMW biturbo-either the 335i, 535i or both and hopefully a 5 Series diesel too and even a 335i convertible, though I take Designman's cautions seriously. The novelty indeed could quickly wear off.
Thanks for the advice, Tony. I surely will NOT lease a diesel if it means a 34 mile round trip to refuel!
I paid a rare visit to my community's exercise room and found they have two state of the art LifeFitness exercise bikes that cost around $4000 each-so I don't have to worry anymore about killing myself on my road bike from a blowout or needing an SUV to transport it. I was wondering where my outrageously high community dues money has been going-at least they are buying top of the line exercise equipment with some of it!
Speaking of "spirited", I will now waft myself back into eternal slumber, waiting to be re-summoned by your magic computer mouse, sometime in the near future.
As de la Barca would say, "La vida es sueno..."
See ya Tony!
Speaking of summoning, Howard, please check your carspace mailbox, where I sent you an email. Need your expertise on a (my next) BMW lease. Thanks.
See my reply at your Car Space mailbox.
Hpowders
To you, due to the unfamiliarity of their measurement, it is perceived differently... but to them, it represents the EXACT same amount... so from their perspective it is the same, not different as you suggest. Why?... because it is perceptually relative, and additionally, in terms of cognitive grahical visualization, it is also identical. A tank of fuel is the same amount whether it is measured in liters or gallons, and the familiarity to that measurement by different societies means that there are other factors at work here that make a society more responsive to saving fuel than the use of the metric system.
The consideration of fuel efficiency as being more or less meaningful is due to numerous other factors, such as the price of the fuel itself, the level of dependency on the resource (a hot button with Japanese, for example), and the values associated with general fuel conservation and environmental awareness. Those are the real things that make saving a few gallons of fuel more meaningful to different cultures and societies... not the metric system.
TagMan
Aye, but there's a difference between "great" and "greatest". The above mentioned are great sports cars, but not the best of the best. I'm talking cars like the F40, the F1, the Carrera GT, etc. RWD all.
Followed one on the way home yesterday. A red GT3... very nice. But, it was bouncing like a pogo stick over every little tiny bump in the road. Yikes, it must be very tightly sprung!
But, yes, back to the point... it is RWD!!
TagMan
40 vs. 21 vs. 12
8.33 vs. 4.76 vs. 2.5
and don't think the middle number is closer to the right side than to the left side in each set. The ones looking at the first set of numbers would think the LS600hL fuel consumption is closer to its fuel guzzling HELC peers than to 40mpg fuel misers; whereas the ones looking at the second set of numbers would think the LS600hL fuel consumption is closer to fuel misers than to its HELC peers.
BTW, I don't think "unfamiliarity" with numbers and I go hand in hand in one sentence. On the other hand, the European measurement method of liters/100-kilometer is a much better measurement of real fuel consuption than our mpg measure, because it actually measures the amount of fuel consumption for a set of distance driven without the mental gymnastics of 1/x function. Judging by how fired up the average American consumers are about 40mpg vs. 30mpg, I don't think living with a standard necessarily makes one really appreciate the subtleties: the fuel consumption difference between 40mpg vs. 30mpg is less than the difference between 14mpg vs. 12mpg over a 12,000 mile year, for example.
They are all RWD because they are relatively small-budget projects derived from F1 racing effort. The real production super cars, like Gallardo, Murcielago, R8, C4S and 911 turbo, where real money is spent for R&D, relatively speaking for small series production cars, are often AWD . . . sometimes despite existing RWD versions of the same car with less power. If AWD offered no advantage, why would Porsche offer it at all on 911? and especially on models where the turbo boost is really cranked up?
Funny, how some people see this differently... something about their outlook on life... being optimistic vs. pessimistic and positive vs. negative. Hardly about the metric system. And whether optimistic or pessimistic, there is no perceptual difference about the amount of fuel. Why? Because half full and half empty are both "HALF"... even from both perspectives, as you indicated. :P
Now, before you get to replying, let me confess that I'm honestly just messin' with ya, and have been all along!
Please forgive me.
TagMan
Reasonable question... and in this case of the 911, the answer is because AWD is not necessarily an "advantage", but an "alternative".
There are cases where the Tiptronic logs better 0-60 times than the 6-speed manual. Does that mean it offers an advantage? Overall, I think it all depends on how you measure and contrast the different "alternatives". Same is true with AWD and RWD. "Advantages" may exist in one situation, but not in another, so it is not accurate to apply the word "advantage" to AWD, but better to apply the word "alternative". Otherwise you have to qualify the statement with hard data, and when that is attempted you find yourself being selective as to which data supports the AWD, because all of the qualifying data would never do so.
TagMan
TagMan
IMHO, the real answer is that as power to weight ratio increase, it becomes important to have a higher per centage of the car's weight contributing to traction. In a front-engine RWD car with 50/50 weight distribution, the maximum force that can be put to the ground is limited by roughly half the vehicle's weight times the tires' friction coefficient. If the engine can deliver more power than that, AWD becomes highly advantageous in cars engineered for real world driving because the force that can be put to the groun become only limited by the car's full weight times the tires' friction coefficient.
What does all this mean? I have no idea!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Sounds better in Spainish than English
Maybe I am mistaken but I cant recall a single car company that owes its success due to mergers or acquisition of other auto makers".
What does it mean for an individual car owner's pocketbook?
Not much in terms of savings.
But it means a lot collectively. If everybody in this planet drove 100 mpg autos instead of 24mpg autos then just think what would happen globally?
No political blackmail from foreign oil countries
Good for the environment
No fears of a fuel shortage
All the money that can be spent on other things than auto fuel
And last but not least saving fuel is becoming incredibly trendy nowadays. Almost every single crook or saint today is claiming to be a "Save our Mother Earth" fan.
NOPE! Not likely at all.
Here's why:
SOURCE: BUSINESSWEEK
The South Korean auto maker is desperate to convince consumers that its cars and SUVs are worth premium prices. Its impatience to see results is understandable. Hyundai's quality is actually ahead of Toyota's in J.D. Power's (MHP ) Initial Quality Study, and behind only Lexus and Porsche. Consumer Reports just tapped two of Hyundai's new vehicles as "Most Impressive" among five 2007 models it recently singled out. But only 23% of all new-car buyers last year even bothered to consider a Hyundai. That compares with 65% for Toyota Motor Co. (TM ) and more than 50% for Honda Motor Co. (HMC )
In the end, Wilhite and a committee of managers and dealers opted for San Francisco-based Goodby, Silverstein + Partners. Goodby helped to define Hyundai's problem using research involving 200 people who sized up the new Veracruz crossover. When a group was shown the vehicle without any identifying logos on it, 71% said they'd buy it. Once the Hyundai logo went on, however, that dropped to 52%. In the same research, a Toyota logo lifts intent-to-purchase by more than 20%.
link title
Getting people to move from a 15mpg big car to a 20mpg car saves a lot more fuel than get them to move from a 30mpg car to a 40mpg car.
It's simply a matter of diminishing returns.
Put another way... a 10 mpg difference from 10 mpg to 20 mpg IS NOT THE SAME as a 10 mpg difference going from 30 mpg to 40 mpg, although some people probably have the perception that it is, that 10 mpg equals 10 mpg in terms of savings and fuel usage. It's not.
All of this is significant if we assume there is a limited fuel supply and that fuel consumption is detrimental to ecology. It is also significant if a person's budget is limited and he chooses to drive a car that gets 10 mpg as opposed to one that get 20 mpg. It is not nearly as significant for the person on this same budget to jump from a car that gets 30 mpg to one that gets 40 mpg because the savings are not the same.
Brightness, you've made good points. It's not that easy explain eloquently in writing.
An equal delta in large quantities vs small quantities yields different quantities. This needs to dawn on people.
Delta Dawn, what's that flower you have on?
Could it be a faded rose from days gone by?
;-)
And you are absolutely CORRECT to see it that way. Here's why...
The problem with brightness's logic is that while it is mathematically TRUE & CORRECT that the fuel savings impact is greater in his comparison of moving from 15 to 20 vs. 30 to 40... what it REALLY means is that by going from a 15 mpg car to a 20 mpg car less fuel is WASTED... in other words, while the difference is higher, it is a difference about WASTE, not a difference about CONSERVATION. So, if you start out at 30 mpg, you are ALREADY CONSERVING more fuel than the vehicle that WASTES the "improved" 20 mpg. And, of course, while the "difference" to go to 40 mpg isn't as large in terms of amount of fuel on a percentage basis, it is thankfully a CONSERVING number rather than a WASTEFUL one.
Heck, by his logic, even more fuel would be saved by going from 1 mpg to 2 mpg, or 5 mpg to 10 mpg, or 8 mpg to 16 mpg, than ANY of the other examples! Would you therefore want a car that improved from 1 to 2 mpg? or 5 to 10 mpg? or 8 to 16 mpg?... as opposed to starting out with a car that gets 30 mpg with even no improvement at all? Of course not!!!
So, don't get caught up in the math. Statistics and data manipulation are used regularly by the politicians, and while they are often truthful, they are quite misleading.
I totally agree with you on this issue, and your perspective is the appropriate one when it comes to conserving fuel. To think that someone would try to convince you that you would be better off in a 20 mpg car than a 40 mpg car is laughable.
My friend, there are times when common sense is all we really need... and this is one of them!
TagMan
I was actually studying his logic for quite a while and I'm saying, "wait a minute. Let's use some common sense here."
BTW, I believe the original purchase of Chrysler was stupid, but the recent sale of Chrysler was a smart move ultimately for ALL players involved.
More pics and the article here:
link title
TagMan
"Converting the measurement system to a European-like gallons/100-miles will get people a lot more conscience about focusing on fuel saving " (brightness04)
"I like the idea of a "gallons per X miles" method of measurement." (tagman)
I also feel that gallons per, say, 100 miles is a better way to measure the consume. The (variable) consume is then measured against the (constant) distance.
But this may be unpractical as well. The measure units must be easy to handle in order to calculate distances. Smaller decimal units are good for that. For instance, when I think on 6L•100kms I know that I can drive 1000 km with a 70L-tank if I am driving on the highway at a given speed in my car (actually at 100-120 km•h). (Then, I will have still 10 L before being short of fuel.) With a consume of 9L•100kms my travel would be of 666 km.
Regards,
Jose
Thanks for the info. I haven't owned a RWD car in years, but I probably will get one to replace the S4. I know I can get through the winter with one, but I'm still not 100% sure about my wife...
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
The signifcance of fuel savings technology for autos in the USA is far more significant than anywhere else in the world.
Why?
Because most vehicles in USA are trucks, SUVs or Crossovers.
What is the average MPG for such vehicles--15MPG or 20 MPG. If a hybrid or diesel can signicantly boost the mileage of such vehicles then the impact on fuel consumption would be reduced substantially more than anywhere else in the world. And the reason for that is because unlike the USA most autos worldwide are small. A 1 percent increase in fuel efficiency on a 15 mpg Silverado is worth significantly more than a 1 percent increase in fuel efficincy on a 30mpg VW Jetta in terms of gas consumption.
But the fact above does not contradict the significance of increasing mileage on small cars from 30mpg to 70mpg or more. Because increasing the fuel mileage on small cars will have a huge affect on fuel consumption worldwide because of the fact that most autos worldwide are small and fuel efficient to begin with. Globally a fifty percent increase in fuel efficiency is still a fifty percent increase in fuel efficiency independent of the size of the auto .
In otherwords both opposing views in this forum are correct and do not contradict each others.
Yeah not something I would use as a daily driver. There is a Z8 and a SLR in my area, but I've never seen a Carrera GT around here.
The Murcielago is the only super car on your list. The rest are pretty pedestrian when compared to cars like the SLR, Carrera GT, or Enzo.
As I've said before, the fastest, best handling versions of the 911, the GT3 RS and GT2, are RWD. Porsche offers AWD as a security blanket for people who lack the skill to drive a GT2.
Man is that thing ever ugly.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
999 Page MB GL Owners Manual
Whether it's Gone With the Wind or former president Bill Clinton's autobiography, some books are known as long reads. But they aren't as long as the owner's manual of a new Lexus.
The manual and two supplements for the $104,715 Lexus LS 600h L, a high-end hybrid on sale this summer, runs 1,097 pages — a four-figure stack of instructions for the brand's first car to exceed a six-figure price.
Coming in at just under 1,000 pages are the owner's manual and accompanying supplements for the Mercedes-Benz GL crossover SUV.
SOURCE: USA TODAY
link title