Talk:Lexus LC

Merge Tag

99.245.112.171 (talk · contribs) has added numerous merge tags to this article. I agree that the huge number of small sections need to be combined into a fewer number of larger sections. However, the {{merge}} tag is not the correct tag to use. The {{cleanup rewrite}} tag covers this quite fine. Note, I appreciate that 99.245.112.171 has put in a large amount of work to try to improve the article.  Stepho  talk  16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Large Scale Restructuring is needed

The whole article needs to be restructured. I suggest looking at Tesla Model S or Tesla Roadster to see how a REAL vehicle article should go. Versions go LAST not at the top, etc etc. @IP address who has spent a large qauntity of his/her life working on the wreck of an article, I suggest creating an account and using the Sandbox to make a version you are comfortable with, rather than engagingin Edit Warring and spamming the change list with itty bitty edits. Just saying. In fact, if this article is not fixed to WP standards by March 31 2016, I will look into nominating it for deletion WP:AFD. L3X1 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Michanixo: and @Carmaker1: are in the beginnings of an edit war. Before it gets worse, how about we have a chat?

I followed the references given by Michanixo. The Japanese reference has no date except for its publication date (23 April 2017). It talks about current (at publication time) production but makes no mention of how long the vehicles had been in production for.

The Lexus Enthusiast reference says they were there on the first day of production. It's reasonable to assume that the article was written (24 April 2017) very soon after the event. Therefore I am happy to accept April 2017 as the start of production. Both references need to be formatted properly.

However, Michanixo also deleted a slab of US references as spam. Since when has Car and Driver been considered spam? I restored the references.  Stepho  talk  12:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly in this respect, I don't really care about these secondary reports regarding April as the start of production date. That is ignorantly gathered information on the part of the other user, as there is a vast difference between SOP aka Start of Production versus that of a Job #1 car, which the latter is completed assembly of a running vehicle. It is why in June 1989, the Lexus ES 250 had reached SOP, then on August 30, 1989, the assembled ES 250 rolled off of the production line. The difference between now and then is, that the gap between SOP and line-off, has narrowed due to advances in automotive engineering and production capabilities over the last 30 years. If we strictly want to be using line-off ceremony dates for the "production" section in the infobox, then let's all please have consensus on this and ignore SOP dates, which do NOT involve completed vehicle builds. The parts and components for a series production model, cannot be manufactured at the same time as a fully completed and driveable of the same model they are intended for.

The vehicle parts and components are what enter manufacturing at SOP, ahead of line-off. By the time that's over with, that is when line-off can be reached with the first completed assembly of these parts as a sum, seen in the series production example. In this case, March 2017 was the date given for start of production. By April 23, 2017, the production process for the Z100 lead to the first fully assembled Z100 example. Previously the car was developed under the 950A programme from 2011 to late 2016 (development ended with pilot production start-up). I am beginning to realize that people (including myself previously) are misconstruing the difference between Start of Production and that of line-off dates. You cannot just start production of a new model, then build the first car tomorrow or even next week. There are lead times between SOP and that of the first completely assembled cars destined for series production and sales. If I need to provide more sources, I'll do so begrudgingly, as it will not be easy at all, since the less informed have jumped onto the line-off ceremony seen on April 23, 2017, versus when production of parts and components for the Z100 started in March 2017. I often find conflicting dates for production on some models, due to this. On cars like the LC, there is a large enough gap in lead time that spills over between two different months.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To me, the date that they started producing the individual components is not all that useful. The date they started assembling the components into this particular vehicle would be useful and the date the first production vehicle (not test run) came off the line would be useful.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

XZ100?

Per reference added by @Carmaker1: states that the model code of the LC is XZ100. But per Toyota's model code convention, technically this isn't the correct model code (the correct one would be still Z100). Not to questioning the edit, but does Toyota have new (another) conventions for model codes (if there's any), besides the "TNGA" formula? 182.30.84.143 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't Z100 because I came up with that myself based in GWZ100 & URZ100 and I haven't seen until now full confirmation from Toyota or Lexus what it is. The reference provided is correct. GVF50 against VXF50 highlights this too. Carmaker1 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm going to edit that soon, I understand that you agree with what I said, but I'm a bit shocked that I missed something like this and created a misleading narrative regarding the model. Carmaker1 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the entry in "mark lines" reference is incorrect.
UR engine + XZ100 chassis would make a USZ100 model code. UR engine + Z100 chassis would make URZ100 which has been confirmed as the model code on UR powered Lexus LCs. The GR engine on this is unique, since it's a hybrid GR and doesn't follow traditional model code formulas. However if we look at Lexus LS XE50 model codes we get a clue:
Non-hybrid GR is GSF50 (Gasoline GR engine + 2 character chassis starting with X = S middle digit, GSF)
Hybrid GR is GVF50 (Hybrid GR engine + 2 character chassis starting with X = V middle digit, GVF)

The hybrid LC uses the same hybrid GR as the Lexus but does not end up with a GV code, but rather GW code. If The LC was XZ100 chassis, it should become GVZ100, just like the GVF50, but it doesn't. It is GWZ100 which makes me think the Hybrid GR engine is treated as a GW in terms of model codes, and therefore the LC is a Z100 chassis, not an XZ100 chassis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:16:BE00:717D:7DD3:CA7A:A974 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was sceptical of your change but it does seem to work out. I found the latest Japanese catalogue at https://lexus.jp/models/lc/pdf/lc_catalog.pdf

It lists 2 engines:

• 8GR-FXS (hybrid) becomes GWZ100
• 2UR-GSE becomes UZ100

Both agree with tables listed at List of Toyota model codes for a platform code of Z100.

I was sceptical because the Z model code was for the Toyota Soarer / Lexus SC. I guess Toyota see the Lexus LC as a continuation of the Soarer/SC Z10, Z20, Z30, Z40.

The Marklines reference has other errors (eg, the Lexus LS entry makes no sense), so I'm fine with deleting that reference.  Stepho  talk  11:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

LC stands for?

isn't it Lexus Challenge? Although the end of the first paragraph states officially "Luxury Coupe". D34073505 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We have a reference https://mag.lexus.co.uk/lexus-model-names/ for "Luxury Coupe". Do you have a reference for "Luxury Challenge"? Toyota has been known to use different acronyms in different regions and/or years but we need a solid reference.  Stepho  talk  11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)