Talk:Lexus LS/Archive 2

V12
How does a hybrid version compensate for the absence of a V12. My competitor has a gas guzzling 500hp+ V12 so I'm going to put a hybrid in my car to steal his business??? Gerdbrendel 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The theory is that the hybrid engine adds enough HP to the output of the gas engine to make it equivalent to the power of a typical V12. Obviously the power of V12s vary, but at 444hp (as it was recently reported that the 600h will have) it's at least in the right ballpark -- the BMW 760i V12 puts out 445bhp.  Note also that the 600h is named according to the same principle; it's a 5-liter engine so it ought to be the 500h, but Lexus is implying that the added power from the electric motor is equivalent to another liter of displacement.  Whether customers buy this logic, well, we'll see next year...


 * On a related note, I'd like to remove the sentence
 * Critics, however doubt whether Lexus will be able to command more than $12,000 premium over LS 460 L, thereby resulting in a MSRP in $80,000-85,000 range for LS600h L; still $15,000 short of the $100K ultra-luxury segment mark.
 * The footnote refers only to Europe, where Lexus doesn't do very well (that's the point of the article). I didn't see any reference to $12,000.  And, given that the 600h appears to include as standard equipment many option packages from the 460L, one of which goes for $20,000, this point of view doesn't seem to make sense. --Steve Pucci | talk 04:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see. The hybrid versions will have as much power as the V12s of the competition. Perhaps we should clarify that in the text because V12 and hybrid sound like opposites at first sight ;-) Also, feel free to remove unsourced info. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Detection of sleepiness
Cut from article:


 * is the world's first to keep track of driver attentiveness. This system ...

I've read (somewhere) about 10 or 20 years ago of such systems being in use. Who says Lexus is the first? --Uncle Ed 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This system uses facial recognition technology, which was not available 20 years ago AFAIK. There are other systems that may keep track of driver input; I know the Boeing 777 sounds an alert if the pilot does not touch the controls for a certain amount of time. If you have evidence of a comparable system, please produce it and this article may be edited--perhaps to say "world's first to use facial recognition technology to track driver attentiveness."  Otherwise a more crude system would be to have your aunt sit next to you in the car and snap her fingers if you fall asleep. :D Enigma3542002 20:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of driver monitoring system efforts is listed here: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/cat_robotics_cars.html

The world's first claim is stated in a number of places, such as: http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Lexus_news.html?id=5787&highlightws=Lexus

It is also listed here as 'latest' technology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4793854.stm

Enigma3542002 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick response. I guess the only question now is whether to describe it as the first system of its type (i.e., using that specific technique) or as the first system ever developed that addressed the problem in general. I'm leaning toward the former. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, I suggest my earlier quote on mentioning facial recognition technology, that would add specificity and increase the accuracy of the description. Based on several source articles, I believe it is fair to say that this is a first in utilizing infrared and facial recognition processing to monitor driver attentiveness. Enigma3542002 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
As of, the article during the review, I failed this article for Good Article status. The major reason is WP:MOS, which I list it below: As a result, I failed this article for the moment. If all of the above issues have been resolved, then editors can renominate it back again. As always, if you feel disagree about my review, you may submit it for a re-review. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too many trivia!! Per WP:AVTRIV, lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items.
 * When you list reference items in the References section using the WP:FOOTNOTE citation style, make sure you spell out all the necessary information regarding the source, not only the title and external links. Necessary information includes author, publisher, retrieved date (if it is online), volume/issue, etc. The purpose is to give easy verification of its sources without clicking the external website.
 * The Awards section is a heavy list and it is inappropriate per Embedded list. If it is necessary, then write major awards in the textual form and point out the detail with See also template to a new list article, for instance List of Lexus LS Awards.
 * Read again WP:MOS for putting boldfaces. Only title of the article in the lead section and its synonyms can be boldfaced.
 * The lead section is very poor, it does not summarizing the whole article if the lead length is compared with the length of the article. The last sentence of the lead is unencyclopaedic because prices can be varied. It sounds more to advertising summary than a lead section of an encyclopaedic article.
 * The first, second, third and fourth generations are belong to one group of Lexus LS History, but the grouping of sections do not give that logical idea.
 * Drop all price information in the main text, because it is not an encyclopaedic information. It's more to marketing report.
 * After reading the First, Second, Third and Fourth Generation sections, it looks like that I'm reading a brochure from Lexus. Trim all unnecessary information about prices, features, and other show-off marketing words. Wikipedia is not an advertising website.
 * Please drop also Future possibilities section. They contains only rumors and events in the future (not ready for a factual data). Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
 * Missing information: Critics? Comparison with similar type of cars?

Thank you for your review and extensive suggestions. I think you made very good points particularly with regard to WP:MOS, in terms of the extensive lists, length, references, etc. We editors of the LS page will most likely attempt to resolve them in the near future. I agree with expanding the lead section in particular. However, as for first, second, third, and fourth generations belonging to LS history, I disagree in so much as noting that the "LS history" section is a summary, which is followed by a more detailed LS generation by generation review. Perhaps in the future if there is sufficient extra information, the sections per generation can become their own pages, with links attached. The fourth generation is the current. However, for now, perhaps the LS history section could be "Historical Overview" or something. I also believe that the pricing information is certainly valid, if perhaps not in the lead section. A primary part of this vehicle's historical impact has been due to its price. Perhaps specific US$ identifiers can add the proper context to those mentions. The boldface issue will have to be looked at, given that many other automotive articles use boldface to denote model designations, but I think we can work it out.

I agree that the article should be as impartial as possible, but IMO that does not preclude mentioning features. All the automotive articles I have come across in Wikipedia have ample discussion of vehicle features. One idea I have thought of is perhaps making it into bullet form like the Mercedes S-Class subarticles, even if it seems Wikipedia prefers text over lists. Regardless, in an article about a particular car, a discussion of the features should be one of the main areas of focus. I think we can also look at the word choices employed in this article, so as to avoid the "advertising" accusation, but there has already been a significant amount of toning-down the language. In particular, going through the article just now, I see verified facts being listed, with little to no weasel words and advocacy of the vehicle. Specific awards and accolades for quality and reliability are noteworthy facts, and mentioned only at key points in the vehicle history. There are mentions of automobile magazine reviews--where a third party, generally respected opinion is included. That might be looked at. Otherwise, the only other positive-sounding so-called "show-off" words in the vehicle description are "world's first" designations, which have been confirmed from a variety of sources. We have even had a challenge to one such "world's first" claim which was resolved. As such, stating that this vehicle is the first in the world to introduce something, and hence be a sort of trend-setter, is certainly worthy information IMO as it pertains to historical and technological significance. If there are specific mentions that are problematic, perhaps we can go over them.

Lastly, the "Future Possibilities" section has been criticized before, and it does seem that it lacks a fully encyclopedic quality. In this section there is also criticism of the fourth generation vehicle. Perhaps the "Future Possibilities" section can be pared down significantly or eliminated, and the critical discussion of the LS 460 moved up to fourth generation section text.

Thank you for your review, it is appreciated! Those who accuse Wikipedia of being unreliable due to free user editing should see the GA process and see the careful attention that Wikipedians bring to it! Improvements will be made, and your suggestions are duly noted. Thanks again. Enigma3542002 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that this article is nearing a transition point in my view for the near future, as it is getting quite long eventually (most certainly by fifth generation debut) to be split into sections or have material pared down. I would like to add that the current level of detail in this article is worthwhile information in my view, particularly as it pertains to flagship vehicles. If too much material must be sacrificed to achieve a GA rating, then perhaps it would be advisable to leave the article alone at a B-level or something. Hopefully that won't be necessary and the best of both worlds can be achieved. Enigma3542002 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1994 pricing
I have added a "citation needed template" next to the 1994 starting MSRP figure. If the starting MSRP of a 1994 LS was $50k in 1994-then the model has actually gotten cheaper. $50k in 1994 = $63k in 2005. Yet the LS started at $58k in 2005 ($45k in 1994 dollars). I thought the LS has gotten continously more expensive (in inflation adjusted as well as total terms)?? Is there any reference that the base MSRP for the LS really exceeded $50k as early as 1994?  Signature brendel  02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The pricing reference is listed in the Edmunds LS Generations article: "The LS traipsed through 1994 virtually unchanged — except for the ever escalating base price (now over $50,000). Designing a car this good must have been tough." I will add the reference in. I believe that the price of the luxury flagship segment and the LS did not fully match the pace of inflation; consider from the Edmunds article:


 * 1990 420 SEL started at $61,210 ($91,000 in 2005 dollars)
 * 2004 S 500 starting at $81,000 ($83,000 in 2005 dollars)


 * ...which indicates that the equivalent S-Class Mercedes MSRP has dropped about $8,000 from 1990 to 2004. Similarly:


 * 1995 LS 400 starting at $50,000 ($63,000 adjusted 2005 dollars)
 * 2004 LS 430 starting at $55,000 ($57,000, adjusted 2005)


 * ... means that the Lexus MSRP dropped about $6,000 from 1995 to 2004.


 * In the long term, the current path has been that the LS has gotten more expensive from then to now (from generation 1 to generation 4). But from year to year, the trend is not so clear (based on MSRP; inflation etc.). The article however currently states, correctly AFAIK, that there was a rise in pricing for the first generation which was quite consistent. Later on there is not such a significant rise, and if inflation is taken into account, the cost of the vehicle was less at certain points. However, the pricing has been consistently advertised in the $50K range (2nd generation) and $55-70K range (3rd generation).


 * Some factors to consider include the threatened trade war between the US and Japan in the mid 90's when the idea of massive tariffs on Japanese luxury goods was suggested, and the softness of the luxury market in certain years. Not to mention the exchange rate and its effects on imports...


 * I should also note however that Lexus in recent years has advertised comparatively low MSRPs, while shipping options packages galore (vs. the 1990 LS 400 when there was only 1 or 2 options packages, now there are half a dozen and they can easily at $5,000-$10,000 to the price, when in 1990 the options were IIRC usually less than $3,000, and even in the $1,000 range or less). This may have mitigated the effects of inflation. For certain, the current LS 460 at $61,000+ and especially the LS 460 L at $71,000+ (up to $95,000+ with certain packages) has topped the cost scales for this vehicle. Enigma3542002 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * mmm... interesting. You are right, the overall price (non-inflation adjusted) has increased from generation to generation. As you have a reference, I suppose the pricing of the LS (if adjusted for inflation) as gone up and down quite a bit... The S-class stats are also quite interesting. For some reason I am very suprised that prices have actually fallen when considering inflation (perhaps increased competition is another factor at work here)... Regards,  Signature brendel  06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to GA-related suggestions

 * Trivia section eliminated. Small "Notable owners" section remains--very short and paragraph-style.
 * References section now uses WP:FOOTNOTE citation style, with author, publisher, retrieved date (if it is online), volume/issue, etc, allowing easier verification of its sources without clicking the external website.
 * Awards section has been adjusted, and a separate listing has been created. (see how that works.) Awards section is now in bullet paragraph form as per Embedded list.
 * Boldface non-italicized items in the lead section are only title of the article and its synonyms:
 * Lexus LS
 * F1
 * LS 400
 * LS 430
 * LS 460
 * LS 460 L
 * LS 600h
 * LS 600h L
 * LS Series
 * However, according to Embedded list, boldface is acceptable for bulletpoint paragraphs. Therefore, italicized bold is used for those bullet points in the Safety features and Awards sections.  See Good Article Lincoln Town Car for a similar example.


 * Lead section has been expanded, to better summarize key points and lead into the (large) body. The last sentence of the lead (on U.S. prices) has been retained because it relevant to consumer goods information, which even an encyclopedia can have, and other wikipedia car GAs contain.
 * Section grouping is maintained, as is logical:
 * 1. Lead
 * 2. Historical overview, discussing all generations
 * 3. Specific generations


 * Some pricing information is maintained, because it is relevant to the discussion about how this vehicle was able to launch successfully, sell commercially, and then move upmarket. Context is added.
 * Features information has been tightened and condensed in parts. The features are relevant to this article on a luxury car, as luxury cars are typically defined by the features they contain. However, efforts have been made to make the features listing as NPOV as possible. No unnecessary descriptive adjectives are included; the use of "world's first" as a descriptor is documented. Vehicle generation discussion follows a clear format:
 * 1. Overall key details (engine, amount of change, appearance)
 * 2. Exterior discussion
 * 3. Interior discussion, etc.


 * Future possibilities section has been dropped and some parts integrated elsewhere re: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
 * Critical reception information, both pro and con, has been included for the each model, along with cultural impact information, mainly for the first and recent models.

Enigma3542002 03:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NOT THE BEST! The magazine auto motor gave this Car only 4 Stars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.148.79 (talk • contribs)

Celsior self-link
The Toyota Celsior link in the right side panel links back to the Lexus LS page. This kind of circular self-link is not good Wikipedia form. It should either link to a separate page, or be plain (unlinked) text.59.167.142.74 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out, I have rendered it plain (unlinked) text. Enigma3542002 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent fuel economy edit in 600hL section
The non-hybrid version of the 600h L is of course the 460L, not the 600L; I assume that's a typo in the recent edit. Also the source of the 460L's data wasn't specified. I checked the Lexus USA site and the mileage there for the 460 was in fact listed as 19/27, but the 460L, obviously a heavier car, as 18/27. The official source of mileage info is at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm -- that site lists the following: The 2007 numbers are most likely different from the Lexus site's because of the change in the way the EPA calculates mileage -- these numbers are the "new EPA MPG" which are to be used to "compare to 2008 and later model vehicles." --Steve Pucci | talk 17:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2007 460: 17 city, 25 hwy, 20 "combined"
 * 2007 460L 16 city, 24 hwy, 19 "combined"
 * 2008 600h L 20 city, 22 hwy, 21 "combined"


 * Thanks for verifying the numbers and making the correction! Enigma3542002 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectivelly, as a person that comes from the asian marketing sence and has grow up in Thailand and Japan , i think there should be a self link for the Celsior , as with other Toyota models as the Aristo and Windom etc. The articles shine very little light on the models they started or originated from. As the Celsior and Aristo. Which were designed as Japan specific models to be rebadged and then sent to US market. A very good, and not very off on specifics and detail of HP and trim was the seperate article of the Toyota Soarer , being its own article and not being directed to teh Lexus SC.

Kongkit (talk)KongkitKongkit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Kongkit, while basically I agree with you and while I am not a Toyota expert, it seems to me that the Lexus LS (marque and model) was specifically created for the North American market; and since Toyota at the time, for whatever reason, decided not to introduce the Lexus marque on the home market, the Celsior seems to be nothing but a re-badged Lexus LS. If I am mistaken and there were notable differences between LS and Celsior, the latter should have its own page, of course. Regards from Europe, --328cia (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-Luxury
It appears that some users were trying to put the Lexus LS series into Ultra-Luxury category of cars. Apparently the reasoning behind this was that, one of the LS models exceeds the price tag of $100K. However this does not automatically categorize the Lexus brand into ultra luxury models. Ultra Luxury segment is very narrow and includes select models exceeding the price of $250K as officially described by numerous auto magazines. Few examples include Maybach, Aston Martin, Rolls-Royce... Bmn187 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This ref supports the "Ultra Luxury" tag for the 600h L, as does this review from Edmunds. (The refs have been added to the article). OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the article and with reasoning agree that the LS600h is in Ultra-Luxury category. Even though article describes the car itself but no reason why its Ultra-Luxury whatsoever, I still agree it is in this category because of its six figure price. BTW I could not help but notice how this article is biased against German car makers.Bmn187 (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of that bias? Personally, I think Germany, England, Italy, and Japan all make excellent vehicles in this class, though each appeals to different tastes; some are more athletic than others, and some are more reliable than others, etc., etc. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)