Talk:Lexus LS

Five-passenger cabin
Text states "The five-passenger cabin also featured a walnut and leather-trimmed interior, power-adjustable memory seats,"  - but isn't this really a 4 seater? the rear bench is distinctly 2+2.

I assume USA UCF20 II (1998)model did not have optional Dynamic Handling Pack, which was offered on UK models?

Also isn't this the first car to be laser welded?

tali -04/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.44.180 (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Noteable UK owners
Comedian Norman Pace LS400 (UCF20)

Footballer John Barnes LS400 (UCF10)

Comedian jeremy Beadle LS400

Footballer Geoff Hurst LS460SE-L with personal plate 66GH

Golfer Colin Montgomery LS430

tali -05/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.44.180 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture
These references were taken out for now, they need reliable references and clear significance to the vehicle:


 * A Lexus LS 430 is driven by Hector Salazar and Wayne Palmer in season 3 of 24 and by Phillip Bauer in season 6.


 * In early episodes of The Sopranos, Christopher Moltisanti drives a Lexus LS 400, which in the very first episode is used by Tony Soprano to run down a man who owes him money.


 * In season 4 of Entourage, Ari Gold drives a Lexus LS 600h L, and gets stopped by police for speeding.


 * The Lexus LS 600h L is featured in the video game Test Drive Unlimited.


 * James May bought a LS 400 to convert into a police car in season 11 of Top Gear.

Not sure where to put this: "an advertising tie-in with Sega produced discs with detailed 3d models and video using Dreamcast consoles." Regards, SynergyStar (talk)

Good article status
I noticed that this article is a former good article. In its current state, I would probably rate it GA (from a cursory read). Maybe one of the major editors would be interested in nominating this article if they feel it is up to it. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, I will be giving the article some touch-ups and probably nominate it soon. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be reviewing the article in the coming days, but be prepared, I do have a few suggestions despite my contrary statement above (I believe the article is good, but needs a few small changes first). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I anticipate that the article will benefit from the suggestions of a fresh pair of eyes. Looking forward to your input.  Regards SynergyStar (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Review

 * Lead: remove all referencing, nothing should be mentioned that is not repeated in more detail in the body.
 * Is "Full-size hybrid luxury car" an actual class? Is the non-hybrid a "Full-size V8 luxury car"? No, so why is the hybrid drivetrain so special? My understanding of vehicles class involves the vehicle's size, SUV/non-SUV and body style.
 * Historical overview: move this information into the relevant generation sections. If I want to quickly do some research because I want to buy first generation (UCF10) LS, I will probably use to TOC and read only the information under this section.
 * "and designed a new 4.0 L V8 engine, four-speed automatic transmission": 4.0 L ---> 4.0 liter.
 * It may be worth mentioning Luxury Exports to the United States, this was admitted by an Australian Lexus/Toyota official.
 * "The Lexus LS 400 (UCF10 I)": "UCF10 I", aren't the originals simply branded "UCF10"?
 * "which debuted for the 1990 model year" ---> which debuted in 1988 for the 1990 model year.
 * "came equipped with a new 4.0 L..." 4.0 L ---> 4.0 liter (please follow this trend for all engine displacements).
 * "producing 250 horsepower (190 kW) and 260 lb·ft (353 N·m) of torque": Japan uses the metric system, use metric figures first.
 * "The LS 400 could accelerate from 0-60 in 7.9 seconds": try finding the metric 0-100 km/h figure (probably 8.0 seconds).
 * "and had a top speed of 250 km/h (155 mph)": spell out km/h or try using 250 km/h ./
 * "Compared to flagship sedans such as the BMW 735i and Mercedes-Benz 420 SE" ---> Compared to flagship sedans such as the BMW 735i (E32) and Mercedes-Benz 420 SE (W126).
 * SRS airbag : ---> SRS airbag.
 * "Adding incentive for early LS 400 sales in the U.S. was a bargain base price of US$35,000": bargain base? True (IMO), but price is subjective. Many people would think $35,000 is very expensive, especially those who only want a basic car. Remove the word "bargain".
 * Avoid bolding "LS 400" et cetera in the generation sections. Only bold in the lead.
 * "The second generation Lexus LS 400 (UCF20), which debuted for the 1995 model year": ---> The second generation Lexus LS 400 (UCF20), which debuted in Novermber 1994 for the 1995 model year...
 * Please follow this method for all instances of model years.


 * Again imperial measurements in UCF20 (including the infobox). Please fix up these issues for the entire article.
 * "Internally, over ninety percent of the second generation LS 400's composition": write out all number greater than 10, so ninety percent ---> 90 percent.
 * "...trunk capacity was slightly reduced": link to trunk (automobile).
 * "Sales for the redesigned LS 400 began in November 1994 in the U.S.": merge with beginning of UCF20 section.
 * Infobox: "4-speed automatic (A341E)" ---> 4-speed A341E automatic. Follow this convention throughout the article.
 * This article is very acronym happy: e.g. UV, GPS, rpm, etc. You must spell these out the first time, abbreviating in parentheses. Only very prevalent abbreviations (CD, DVD, LCD, etc) can be left unexplained (although still linked).
 * Limited editions: move these models into their relevant generations.
 * Safety systems: every car has safety features these days, and the LS has never really introduced anything groundbreaking in terms of active or passive safety (ABS, ESP, airbags, etc). Move this information in the relevant sections.
 * "extra features were rushed for the launch of the 1991 Mercedes-Benz W140 S-Class" ---> 1991 Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W140).
 * Media reception: only mentions the first and latest generations, move to appropriate section.
 * Lexus LS awards list ---> List of awards won by the Lexus LS (or something similar).
 * See also: kill this. Maybe the Toyota Century, Crown and Crown Majesta should be mentioned in the body instead as a precursor to the LS (and mention that both have remained in production despite the LS's arrival).
 * Kill the "Japanese Car portal" link.
 * The Toyota Celsior is barely mentioned, is more information available (any pictures)? Make sure you bold "Toyota Celsior" in the lead (very beginning of the lead too).
 * Fix the infobox production fields from model years to actual production years (if this was a Cadillac this would not be so).
 * Remove "FR layout" from the UCF20, UCF30 and USF40 infoboxes.
 * If you can find a source saying that Euro sales number have been low because European cars have generally been better quality than their U.S. equivalents (Lincoln, Cadillac) add it.

Overall, this is a great article and I'll have another look at it when these changes have been made (I will probably find a couple of more things to do). Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that the reason why I have listed many small and easy changes instead if fixing them myself, is not because of laziness. I feel that people learn better through both active and passive techniques.


 * There are still instances of unexplained model years in the UCFx0 II sections.
 * There are seven links to disambiguation pages that should be pointed at more specific targets if possible . OSX (talk • contributions) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes made to this article have exceeded my expectations. Therefore I am granting this article good article status. With a greater emphasis placed on internationalisation, this article would be quite close to FA (although FA reviewers will surely find many things to pick at as always). OSX (talk • contributions) 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review and the advice given! It was a very informative experience, and helped improve the article a lot. Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'll be keeping this article on my watchlist to make changes as this article progresses further. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also just to note, the article can now be removed from the Good_article_nominations list, probably best by the reviewer? Thanks again. SynergyStar (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 facelift
Here it is:. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thx for the info, I followed the links to the original JDM website which posted the info, it's now linked. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

-- I'm not sure where to place this comment, but I updated to note that the Lexus was officially unseated this year as the most reliable vehicle in JD Power. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/03/buick-jaguar-unseat-lexus-atop-jd-power-reliability-study.html

Still a dang reliable vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.215.94.13 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Recliner seat
Shouldn't there be a pic of the reclining rear seat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catyfro (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a photo on the Lexus LS Hybrid page. SynergyStar (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Work
I've had a couple of these cars, and I found this article extremely interesting and informative. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.177 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline refs
Following up from Talk:Lexus_LS_(XF40), the below recently-added statements received citation needed tags or vague tags due to a lack of sources:

UCF10: UCF20: UCF30: USF40:
 * "...the final design for the production Lexus LS 400 (chassis code UCF10) was approved in May 1987."
 * "Subsequently, a U.S. design patent was filed by the Toyota Motor Corporation on May 13, 1987 for an unnamed model."
 * "Following the starting of LS sales, work begun on improvements throughout 1990 and 1991. By the end of 1991, the updated model was completed concurrently alongside..."
 * "The final design was frozen during 1992-1993, with various tests running worldwide throughout 1993 and into late 1994."
 * "Work on mid-cycle changes to the UCF20 began in early 1995 and continued concurrently alongside initial development for the next-generation UCF30..."
 * "Following the initial sales of the new model, in 2001 development begun on both the facelift and its successor due in 2006. By early 2003, the updated UCF30 was completed..."
 * "Development on fourth generation LS began in 2001, with the final production design taking shape in 2003 to 2004."

These statements seem plausible, and the effort to improve the article is appreciated, but per WP:Verifiability there needs to be reliable sourcing. For all 4 generations, searches through the bibliography books, Google News archives, Google, and elsewhere have turned up no references to confirm mid-cycle refresh development and test dates thus far. This information might not be publicly available.

Regarding the dates of development, book sources confirm the May 1987 final approval for the UCF10, and have been added with page numbers and dates. Existing article sources state that the UCF20 was developed from Spring 1991 to late 1994, and that statement has been kept. Another existing citation says that the UCF30 development took four years, and that has been kept. No source could be found stating that the USF40/41 model began development in 2001, although it seems plausible. Final design approval dates are also unavailable for all but the first generation as of this writing.

Lastly, regarding the design patent filed on May 13, 1987, a check of the US Patent office site here was made, which confirms a 2005 patent date on the XF40 article. However, a review of the 10 patents applied for by Toyota on May 13, 1987 appears to show images of a different vehicle--possibly the ES 250. Because the patent images do not resemble the first generation LS 400, the statement indicating a patent filing for the UCF10 on that date has been removed. Possibly it was another date?

Thanks for helping improve the article, but as is site policy, reliable sources are needed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SynergyStar, excellent research! Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Model years on U.S-Spec
As with domestic Ford models such as the Mustang (until 2015), U.S.-spec models or photography utilising US-spec models should have text reflective of U.S. spec offerings. The first generation LS400 was only offered in North America during Q3 and Q4 1989, reaching Europe and other territories during the 1990 calendar year (June 1990 in Europe). Similar applies to the second generation in December 1994 (US) and January 1995 (Europe).

Judging by existing standards, championed by Stepho-wrs, that has been the case, where sections and photography of U.S-market models utilise model years. 1994 is not a model year for the XF20, it is strictly the production and launch year, which is not formally recognised in the US. I highly disagree with the revert of my changes to the article, as it is plain inconsistency and unwarranted, as I am going by that template correctly.

If one wants to employ the use of production years, in regards to global standards, that apply that to the photography or illustrations of non-US specification models, such as the Celsior or AUS-spec/UK-spec/EU-spec examples. Does one in a VW Golf article, utilise a photo of a US-spec Mk6 Golf that reached there in 2009 (MY2010), as representative of the 2008-2012 period for domestic Deutschland? I know better and can tell the diifference, but it will more than certainly confuse many American and non-American readers alike, who are likely a significant majority on Wikipedia. Claiming "Yank attack" for a good faith edit on the XF20 II LS400, is equally combative as some of my own expressed frustration at troublesome editing, mainly along the lines of vandalism or deliberately repetitive carelessness.

After 12 hours, I may undo the latest revert and reinstate my edit on the grounds, there's no such thing as an XF20 Lexus titled as a 1994 model. Using MY1995 does well enough.—Carmaker1 (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The article says "The second-generation Lexus LS 400 (UCF20) debuted in November 1994 (for the 1995 model year)" and that production was from October 1994 to 1997. Presumably "debuted" means available for customer sales and there was a few months of production and shipping in the pipeline. Carmake1's own edit summaries talk about a US sale date commencing in Dec 1994, which is of course in calendar year 1994. So, I'm hoping we in agreement that the Lexus LS 400 second gen was on sale in the US (and possibly other places) from calendar year 1994.


 * The date system that I've championed is to use calendar years whenever possible. It is unfortunate that American model years and calendar years used by most other markets look identical when written (eg "the 1995 LS 400") but typically have 9-12 months difference. It's doubly unfortunate that both sides do not underfstand the other side. There are more markets using calenader years years than US style model years, so we have standardised on using calendar years. But for the many Americans who appear unable to think of cars in anything beside model years, we allow purely American veicles made in America for sale almost exclusively to Americans to use the American model year system. To be extra nice, we use use phrases like "in 1994 (for the 1995 model year)" in articles so that both Americans and non-Americans know what's happening. Occasionally we put "MY1995" without a calendar year but that confuses the non-Americans and should be avoided. The source of the particular photo was not mentioned in the article and should not really matter because somebody in Australia, Scotland, Germany, etc would not really care that an American would call it by one year higher than they would.


 * However, I do apologise for the "Yank attack" comment. I get frustrated when some editors ram US style model years down our throats without thinking of the global audience and sometimes I take it out on someone, such as you, who doesn't deserve it.  Stepho  talk 06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lexus LS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId%3D115368
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&source=emfromsendlink&format=PDF&document_id=977831251&extdocid=977831251_1_eng_pdf&serialid=mloPNv7E0vSpbVXspCzREiMSkukb0pOZlgZROxrMRwE%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216071033/http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=12920 to http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=12920
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId%3D119074
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/in_the_world/pdf2009/production_en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/in_the_world/pdf2010/production_en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/C40CA2CB6C8577F1CA257285001E7302?open&template=domWheels
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/dc2007/05.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/who-makes-the-best-cars/overview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Japanese Sources (WP:PAYWALL)
The in-depth information on the 200B development programme with illustrations, does not have a direct URL to review it, unless you purchase access. I am always willing to spend my own money, to improve the content on Wikipedia (in being in a financial position that has allowed me to), but I will not post it in entirety for piracy concerns. Here is a sample of the content I have: 2013 200B Clay. I have no reason to make things up out of thin air. It is best I can do, to support word of mouth and one-on-one interviews, that are "off the record".--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Horsepower
I saw your recent edits regarding power figures and thought I'd check. China, HK, Malaysia, and many others always use metric horsepower. There is absolutely no requirement or global acceptance of using "PS" to denote metric hp (although they often do so in Hong Kong) and it is clear that the Paul Tan as well as the HK reference are for metric hp. Personally I don't care if we lead with PS or hp or kW, although I think kW is the WP standard, what counts is that the figure is correct. Allow me to illustrate:

I don't know how to keep this from happening and I know we are not to blame for there being two kinds of very similar units with interchangable abbreviations, but I know that I am unhappy with Wikipedia containing errors like this. I suspect half the power figures on newer cars with a global market are fully mixed up. I think that including all three units is the way to go; if we use  318 PS  editors can insert whichever unit the original source contains and the output will always be as it should be. The order can be discussed, but for me SI comes first, customary metric second, and non-metric dead last. Not including all three invariably ends up with someone "fixing" the units to add the output that they are familiar with. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Displaying kW, PS, hp in that order sounds good to me. My only beef with the recent edit is that the number typed into or  should always be the number that was in the reference (to make double checking it against the reference easier) while still keeping the order as metric first (via |order=flip or |order=out) and that standard abbreviations like "km/h" are better than the long and tedious "kilometre per hour" (also avoiding UK vs US spelling issues).  Stepho  talk  02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)