1996 Lexus Lx 4dr Wagon on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Stand out in the parking lot | 2017 Lexus NX 200t F-Sport Quick Spin

Timing is a funny thing. As I'm writing this mini-review of the Lexus NX 200t, which has been out for several years and used the brand's first turbocharged engine in America, a newly-revised NX just debuted in China. It doesn't have much bearing on my thoughts about the CUV, but it does go to show the growing importance of China for luxury manufacturers like Lexus and Mercedes-Benz. It's been almost three years since we drove the NX 200t for the first time. Back then, our reviewer was impressed by how different it felt from the RAV4 – the two vehicles share a platform, although Lexus claims 90 percent of the NX is distinct from its Toyota cousin. The biggest differences are styling and, more important, the powertrain. With turbocharging going very mainstream in the intervening years, how does the NX200t hold up? I spent a week in an F-Sport trim in a striking orange color to find out for myself. It took a little while for me to warm up to the powertrain. Even in Sport mode, things seem ... well, they seem a little sluggish. The NX has a funny way of expressing its slightly more than adequate horsepower and torque by requiring a hefty punt to spool up the turbo and get things moving along. Normal drive mode could pass for an economy setting. Back in 2014 when this thing was new, it was clear that the RAV4 connection doesn't matter as much as we, as enthusiasts, would think. It's easy for us to fixate on what vehicle is related to what platform, and which way its engine sits. And that's good! We need to do that. But Lexus determined that they didn't need it to sit on a rear-drive sportscar platform because of course not! It's a little crossover. From a packaging standpoint, that'd be idiotic, and from a marketing standpoint likewise. Not to say that buyers of the NX 200t aren't discerning. But I think their priorities and desires probably align with what Lexus decided to produce. This is good and proper. Also, it beats the heck out of a RAV4. I love the seats. Every body is different, sure. But these seats are completely spot on for what my body needs. They're sporty-looking without resorting to immense bolsters that pinch the torso, and they're very supportive. I wouldn't say they're the best seat's I've tried out of the hundreds of cars I've driven over the years, but they're probably the best small crossover seats I can recall. To put it in different terms, on some long road trips you need to stop just to stretch – that's not the case here.

2018 Technology of the Year Award | We chat with Lexus about the LC 500h's hybrid system

Every year, Autoblog editors test dozens and dozens of the newest vehicles available, sometimes even before they're available. From those vehicles, we select the ones we think provide the most innovative technology in the industry. Then we pare the list down to the very best, test them again, and vote on our winner for Technology of the Year. This year, Lexus's multi-stage hybrid system — as tested in the LC 500h — came out ahead of the rest of the finalists. We chose the 2018 Detroit Auto Show to hand over the award to Lexus Group Vice President and General Manager Jeff Bracken. He was kind enough to sit down with Autoblog Senior Editor Alex Kierstein and Green Editor John Snyder at the Lexus stand to talk about the hybrid system, what it does, and what it means for the future of Lexus and Toyota. Check out the video above, and follow along for all our coverage from the 2018 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, where we are taking a look at all of the new cars and technology that we'll see in the near future. Perhaps the next winner of Autoblog's Technology of the Year award is sitting somewhere on the Detroit show floor. Related Video: Green Detroit Auto Show Lexus Toyota Fuel Efficiency Green Automakers Technology Technology of the Year Coupe Hybrid Luxury Performance Videos Original Video 2018 detroit auto show

Jaguar solution to keyless start could save lives

UPDATED: An earlier version of this story indicated the Jaguar keyless start function was meant as a safety feature, when in fact, it is meant as a convenience one and will not work as described if automatic stop/start is not engaged. Today, The New York Times published an article about more than two dozen deaths related to drivers accidentally leaving their cars running, closing their garages and later succumbing to carbon monoxide that flooded their homes. The reason has been identified as "keyless start" features, or proximity entry and push-button start, where owners don't need to physically handle a key or fob to gain entry into the vehicle or start it. It is the latest, and deadliest, issue raised with this system after those related to security and simple inconvenience (for instance, leaving the car at a valet or car wash with the fob in your pocket). From my personal perspective, The New York Times had a rather harsh "evil carmakers" tone throughout the article. This is not a matter of a known faulty component, as with the GM ignition switch recall. This has as much to do with user error where people leave their car without pressing the "off" button and without noticing the engine is still running. About half of the cars in question are produced by Toyota and Lexus, brands that have offered keyless start longer than most. They are also brands with high rates of elderly owners, who seemingly made up a majority of reported deaths and injuries. One fire department in Florida even started a campaign alerting those in the area of the dangers of leaving your car running when it noticed a correlation between an increase in cars equipped with keyless start and calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning. I see several contributing issues at play, most of which go well beyond this particular issue. First is insufficient training of owners by dealers and/or owners not paying close enough attention during this training. Cars are complicated, but you should at least know how basic functions work. Second, woefully inadequate driver training in this country. Third, and with apologies to the AARP, insufficient testing of elderly drivers and/or insufficiently low standards for elderly drivers. If you don't know you have to shut the car off or cannot hear that an engine is running, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. Fourth, re-examining keyless start systems.