(curbside dark green GS 300 images by Paul N.)
(first posted 4/30/2015) Since its introduction in 1989, Lexus has in many ways, become the poster child for success, as far as the luxury car world is concerned. From the its appealing designs and inviting interiors, to its industry-leading levels of quality and customer satisfaction, to its redefinition of the customer service experience, Lexus’ early years were met with success after success and praise after praise, cementing its place in the luxury car field and allowing the brand to be taken seriously against established, high-prestige brands (chiefly, Mercedes-Benz).
In the ensuing years, Lexus continued to redefine the definition of luxury car, with vehicles such as the revolutionary RX crossover, and an early focus on fuel efficiency. To this day, Lexus continues to become more German-like with a heavier emphasis on performance, while retaining the high quality and reliability its customers have come to expect. Of course, even the seemingly golden child has not existed for nearly three decades without a few blemishes on its record. Case in point being the 1993 GS 300.
Sold as the Toyota Aristo in Japan beginning in 1991, the GS 300 was a mid-sized, rear-wheel drive luxury sedan, positioned in the same class as the stalwart E-Class and 5-Series.
Unlike the LS, ES, and SC, which were styled in-house by Toyota’s design studios, the styling of the GS 300 was carried out by Giugiaro in Italy. This resulted in the GS 300 sharing hardly any visual resemblance to other Lexus models. Given the widespread praise of other Lexus designs, it seemed like an odd move, until you consider the fact that work began on the GS in 1988, one year before Lexus reached the market.
Shortly after designing the GS/Aristo, Giugiaro would release a concept for Jaguar in 1990 called the Kensington. Sharing many design elements with the GS, and somewhat even more so with the second generation GS, the Kensington failed to ever see life as a production Jag. Yet the GS and Kensington’s design language would once again appear in the Giugiaro-designed 1997 Daewoo Leganza. It was no different than what Pininfarina had been doing for decades, tailoring the current Italian suit to fit various customers.
Now it should be noted that the primary reason for turning to Giugiaro was in fact to produce a design that stood out, as Japanese designs (especially from Toyota) had a reputation for being overly conservative, and were often criticized for being such, such as the sixth generation MarkII/Cressida.
The end result was a striking departure from any other car in its class or most other cars for that matter. The GS’s wedge-like profile was highlighted by a steeply-raked front fascia, long and low hood, rounded roof line, and unusually high deck-lid (a sharp contrast to that of the Infiniti J30). With what might be described as a “cab-rearward” design, the GS certainly looked the part of a rear-wheel drive luxury sedan. Additionally, the car’s wide stance gave it both aggression and a stately presence.
With that said, the GS 300 was among the more generic aero designs in its class, and it didn’t exude the character nor grace of some competitors. Small wheel openings and wheels tended to give it the elephant in ballerina slippers look from some angles. Despite its mid-size position, the GS was one of the largest cars in its class, coming within about two inches of the LS 400 in length, one inch in wheelbase, one inch in width, and actually surpassing the LS in height by a fraction of an inch. The GS 300 was even longer than a regular-length BMW 7-Series (E32).
With the smaller ES 300 and larger LS 400 largely emphasizing comfort over performance, the GS 300 was marketed as Lexus’s sports sedan. Indeed it did boast a double wishbone suspension, stiffer springs than other Lexus sedans, speed-sensitive steering, and four-wheel ventilated disc brakes. Most importantly to enthusiasts, it was rear wheel drive. But just like strong leg muscles don’t automatically turn a person into an ultra-marathon runner, rear-wheel drive does not magically turn a vehicle into a sports car. A number of other components are instrumental, such as cardiovascular endurance, or in the case of cars, power.
Fitted with a 3.0L I6, Lexus claimed its 220 horsepower and 210 lb.-ft. was capable of propelling the hefty GS 300 from 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. This wasn’t terrible, but certainly not within 535i territory. A 4.0L V8 was available in the Japanese-spec Toyota Aristo, and it’s a shame North American GSs did not receive this engine. The decision to not sell a V8-powered GS was likely to not upstage the flagship LS.
However, as often the case with many luxury car buyers, particularly Lexus buyers, comfort and luxury take precedence over performance. The GS 300 certainly wasn’t lacking in this category, offering an interior that could be equipped to very LS-like levels of luxury.
Things on the inside were more familiar to other Lexus’, with a layout following the design set by the LS 400 and ES 300, albeit a few more curves to complement its exterior shape. Seats sported a distinctive scalloped look with vertical stitching, and genuine walnut accents were applied in a tasteful manner. Overall, it was good enough for its class, although despite being closer to the LS in price, material quality seemed nearer to ES level.
It may have had its imperfections, but the Lexus GS 300 was a respectable effort that given Lexus’ then-stellar reputation and the strong sales of the ES 300 and LS 400, should have gone on to sell in reasonable numbers. Yet over the course of its first generation (1993-1997), the GS 300 sold fewer than 50,000 units. By comparison, the more expensive LS 400 sold over 100,000 examples in that time. Even the less practical and similarly-priced SC 300/400 coupe sold more units than the GS 300 over those five years.
Exterior styling, performance, and interior shortcomings along with lack of family resemblance may have all contributed, but what was likely responsible for the first generation GS 300’s disappointing sales was quite simply its price tag. At the time of its introduction, the GS 300 retailed for $37,500 (just under $61,000 in 2015 dollars), not including destination. By the time popular options like leather, moonroof, and CD changer were added, its price was already over $40,000. By 1997, its base price had climbed to $45,700 (over $74,000 in 2015).
Although the LS 400’s price had also steadily climbed since its introduction, it was still a bargain compared to its German competition, and its base price was never more than a $10,000 premium over the GS 300. Throwing out even more comparisons, a 2015 Lexus GS 350 starts at $48,600 and a 2015 LS 460 begins at $72,520.
Now of course, Japan’s rocky economy from the collapse of its asset price bubble, as well as the threat of U.S. imposed tariffs had a lot to due with the rising prices of Japanese luxury cars in the mid-1990s. But sympathy for an economy half a world away is usually not a major consideration of most luxury car buyers.
In the ensuing years, the GS evolved into a more competitive luxury sports sedan, finding its niche in the marketplace, as well as Lexus’ own lineup. With more powerful engines, more luxury features, and more appealing styling, the GS has easily become Japan’s most formidable competitor in a class ruled by the 5-Series and E-Class. Although it has managed to sell in higher numbers for most years than its first generation, the GS remains a shadow of its German competition, in both sales and prominence. Meanwhile, the similarly-sized, less-sophisticated, and comfort-oriented ES does laps around it in terms of sales, which really says something about Lexus’ brand perception. But that subject has been discussed in another article.
As for the original 1993-1997 GS 300, it was a car that had too many forces working against its chances for success, with the strongest being none other than its price tag. It was merely too little car for too much money, and as a result, buyers went elsewhere.
Related Reading:
The Lexus phenomenon in the US is something I can only explain by German luxury brands dropping their standards during that period. These cars are so uncommon in Austria (and, in fact, in other European countries) – in all the years I have been living here I have seen 3, maybe 4 GSs (there are few of the smaller models, but nothing in comparison with the hordes of smaller BMWs, Audis and M-Bs); they are seen as excidingly dull and uninspiring copies of German cars – in fact there is even a kind of stigma attached to owning one. The response when someone is telling about so-and-so having bought a Lexus is mild puzzlement at best: “yes, it’s reliable but why?”
Don’t even get me started on that other mystery, the Camry, even rarer(!) here than a Lexus (yes, I have heard the explanations but still…).
Talking to myself here (eccentric car buffs do that, you know): perhaps those replaced US luxury brands who were no longer making the kind of cars the public wanted? There was never such a situation in Europe – with one exception in the late 90s early 00s, when M-B became slack for a while, local manufacturers of luxury cars always remained on the ball, so to speak. I have to find out what, if any, price advantage Lexus might have had. Hmmmm…
That’s because the Lexus-brand was introduced with North-America in mind, not with Europe in mind.
Look at how thin on the ground Lexus (and Infiniti) dealerships have always been, while MB-Audi-BMW dealerships are widespread throughout the whole continent.
And if you don’t (or can’t) offer a 6 or 8 cylinder diesel in this segment (D-, E- and F-segment executive sedans) then why bother to offer the car in the first place; an impossible operation from the beginning. Only the IS-series had the headgasket blowing 4-cylinder 2.2 liter D4D D-Cat diesel for a while.
At least GM was developing a high-end 3.0 liter V6 diesel for Cadillac, through VM Motori. That engine is now under the hood of several FCA products.
Johannes,
First, yes, I agree maybe in the beginning but on the other hand I’m sure Toyota would love to sell more here and they in Austria they offer a very full range of cars, which you would not do if you were not serious about the market (see here: http://www.lexus.at/#/ExploreRange. Of course, it could be a kind of a Japanese “we must not lose face” thing…). I just am not sure that even if they had the diesels people would accept them. What Brendan is saying confirmed my suspicion, that is that the American car makers stopped (or never started) building cars the public in this segment wanted, so there was room for Toyota to move in.
TT, since we don’t have a car industry of our own, and we have an open economy (no protectionism), buying Japanese cars was never a “patriotic” issue. We bought Toyotas by the shiploads, from the late seventies onwards. You remember the days of the Starlet, Corolla, Carina, Camry and HiAce ? Highly popular, very successful and hence, all over the place.
Excellent quality and a lot of goodies for its price, next to the expensive and completely stripped Volkswagens.
But from circa the mid-nineties onwards things turned around. Compare the sales numbers and the market share of the Corolla and Carina E of yore with their current models. Getting worse by the year. That’s what I meant with “Toyota is slipping away” the other day. Even the guys at my Toyota dealership (I’m a customer since 1999) mention it: “We haven’t sold a new Avensis or RAV4 (read: models with a decent profit margin) for quite some time now”.
It’s basically the same thing that happened to Honda in the past years. The Honda dealership nearby went bankrupt last year, after running the dealership for decades in a row.
I know… Same here. I think what happened is also that VW, BMW, M-B and now the ever improving Volvo have stepped up their game once they started to feel the heath, and the same applies to Fiat with the small models. Renault has actually done very well with the Romanian Dacia to recover the cheap & nasty (or, if you want to be charitable, frugal) segment which they lost when they went away from cars like the 4. The ones benefiting from this all are the Koreans…
The RAV4 used to be the default choice in the CUV crossover market, but some excellent alternatives have come to market like the Mazda CX-5. We got one for my wife, and she loves it. The seats are more comfortable than the ones in my ’06 Lexus GS 300.
This generation RAV4 was very successful. The one below has the 2.0 liter D4D turbo diesel engine with an intercooler (its air inlet is in the hood). Handsome, perfect size. An excellent allround family-car.
Today’s generation is much bigger, heavier and costs a lot more.
You must also realize that in the U.S., consumer culture exploded during the 1980s. Peoples’ buying habits changed drastically from the previous decades, when saving a substantial portion of one’s annual income was the norm. The idea of splurging on designer clothes, larger-than-needed homes, and luxury cars in the name of enhancing one’s image was no longer out of the ordinary.
There has also always been a general feeling among most younger people towards cars in that they don’t want to drive what their “old” parents drive. In the late-60s/early-70s they bought muscle cars. In the 80s, young “yuppies” bought import luxury sports sedans/coupes like the BMW 3-Series and Saab 900. Less yuppyish people bought cars like the Accord and Camry. Of course, as people get older, they do tend to buy more comfortable and “traditional” cars.
By the 1990s, this generation was getting older. Fifteen years ago they would’ve bought Oldsmobiles, Buicks, Cadillacs, and Lincolns. But those were the cars of their parents, and bench seats, wire wheels, and vinyl roofs were not what these people wanted in a larger, more comfortable car.
Enter Lexus. Inoffensive, but elegant design. Solid craftsmanship. Plush interiors. High quality. Outstanding customer service. Lower price (in the case of the LS400). Lexus effectively took the place of the Cadillac, Lincoln, and higher-end Oldsmobiles and Buicks. It had a fresh, modern image, it wasn’t what parents had driven, and it had the perceived higher Japanese quality.
I have more to say on this, but I have to get to work. Hope this helps explain Lexus’ reasons for success.
It does, thank you.
Brendan summarizes the appeal of Lexus well, but let me add emphasis to the importance of customer service!
If you’ve driven dull but reliable Japanese cars as a low- to middle-income person, you might want to move up to something fancier when you become wealthier. Many people who moved up to German cars in the ’80s-early ’90s found that they a) broke down more, b) cost more to repair, often forcing you to use the dealer rather than your local mechanic, and then c), going to the dealer felt like volunteering to get mugged.
The margin of difference has closed since then, but reliability and friendly, affordable service is a big part of how Lexus distinguished itself, maybe more than the cars themselves.
I always have to chuckle when I hear about Lexus’s wonderful dealer experience. My Dad and I bought my Cougar in 2005 from the local Lexus dealer since someone tranded it in, and while I wasn’t buying a Lexus product I still got the whole dealer experience treatment, designer carpeted showroom/offices with moodlighting, friendly staff, ect. I even got a silver platter with fancy food in the mail a week later. It’s kind of like going to Disneyland if they had a Dynasty attraction.
I think for my Dad and I it was a little over our heads. I was a cynical teenager then, so that all seemed cheezy and pompous to me right away, and my Dad a few months later bought his used GS300(second gen) at the Honda dealer nearby, but it was still on factory warranty long enough to have services done at the Lexus dealer for a while. However once that car was off warranty and started developing problems(and boy did it), the dealer wasn’t particularly good at diagnosing squat or cheap about their time spent misdiagnosing it. Last time he took it there was for the 100k mile timing belt change, which apparently requires buying new “everything” that comes off, including the water pump for some reason, and when he got it back I looked under the hood and immediately saw the plastic engine cover was cracked and missing the Lexus emblem, the wire loom wasn’t laid out properly and oil and coolant was smeared EVERYWHERE! It looked like they spilled a full container on it or and only wiped it up where you could immediately see it.
Most of the work done to that car was DIY or handled by local shops from that point onward. When he traded it in recently it was for a brand new car, and it was definitely not a Lexus.
Timing belt and water pump replacement are very commonly paired in cars that have timing belts. In some cases, the timing belt actually runs the water pump and the failure of one will take the other with it. In others, they’re just in the same vicinity, and since the majority of the cost of replacing one is labor to get at it, it makes sense to replace the other at the same time. This can run up the cost of the whole project, but that part is certainly not specific to that dealer or to Lexus.
It is very unwise to not replace the water pump when doing a timing belt change. At that kind of mileage, the water pump can start to leak at any time. If the entire shebag is apart, do it. It’s only an extra .3 on most jobs.
The one point I would add to this is that I get the impression that the role of a big luxury car is somewhat different in the U.S. than in Europe.
In the U.S., fuel is usually a modest part of a vehicle’s cost of ownership, and in many areas, public transportation is not really a viable option for getting to work or dealing with dropping off and retrieving children from school. (Even where it is an option, there’s often a considerable stigma attached for middle-class people.) Moreover, for moderately affluent buyers, home and work are often quite far apart.
The results of this are that people drive long distances — I don’t know about Western Europe, but in the U.S., 19,000 to 24,000 km a year is considered typical — and even executive-class buyers are often quite dependent on their cars for day-to-day affairs. A well-to-do household may have multiple cars and upscale dealers now typically offer loaner cars during servicing, but having a car out of commission is a major inconvenience. So, reliability is a significantly higher priority than if a car were just a status symbol and has a much greater impact on a car’s resale value, which in turn affects the cost of leasing.
Without discounting the impact of fads and status-seeking, U.S. consumer priorities very often come down to the fact that Americans will pay a premium to not be inconvenienced. Japanese luxury cars aren’t always interesting or exciting, but they tend to score well on minimizing inconvenience, which has a lot to do with their success here.
Typical for an executive car is easily 35,000 to 50,000 km a year.
Hence the high-performance 6 cylinder diesels I mentioned above. No one drives that number of kilometers with a gasoline engine (regardless the size of the car, BTW).
Common executive cars are E-segment sedans like an Audi A6 3.0 TDI or a Mercedes E-class 350 CDI. Comparable American, Japanese or Korean cars simply don’t exist.
There isn’t anything very interesting or exciting about your luxury car sitting on the side of the road like a hooptied-out POS. Why reliability wouldn’t be just expected and considered a “granted” when buying a car (economy, luxury, sports, whatever) is beyond me.
I don’t think it has to do with the German luxury car makers dropping their standards as much as them treating the US Market (which is a much bigger market then the European market) as a dumping ground for lesser versions of their products. in the 1980’s MB gave us the crappy timing chain snapping 3.8l engine or detuned versions of the S-Class. Then to cover their own stupidity in not giving the USA good cars, they somehow lobbied Congress to pass a law to restrict Americans from bringing in cars because folks of means in the USA were importing the good Benzes.
Then there was the arrogance of the dealers (both MB and BMW) and the utter unreliability of the cars. Seriously, If I spend $60,000 on a luxury car, I expect it to start up each day and be more reliable then a $16,000 Ford Focus.
A good friend of mine has a 1995 Lexus LS that she bought new in spring of 1995. Back in 2010 she bought a new 2010 BMW 5 series and relegated the Lexus to spare car. The BMW has been nothing but trouble since day one and will be soon dumped. The old Lexus only needed a replacement ABS unit (one major repair in 20 years)
German cars may be more reliable in Europe but they are rubbish here in the USA
Best car I ever owned. In its 22nd year and still runs like a top. I have to disagree with this article
I could easily put up with a GS300.There’s quite a few on British roads.
I did not forget the UK, tastes were in many ways differnt over there from the EU. I left in 2001 but my recollection is again they were not selling as well as the Germans (although better than in Europe, and the small models did reasonably well). For the avoidance of doubt: these are worthy vehicles for sure, I have nothing against the design. I’m just trying to fathom the reason for THAT much success across the pond.
Probably GS doesn’t work out too well on the market, but they are having a good niche market now: making lackluster comfortable larger sedan by offering ES.
This market was once occupied by those FWD Lincoln Continentals. The same lackluster larger sedan from a decorated mainstream one with generous options at a bargain price still with plenty of luxury.
Neither of them have any inspirations in terms of design ( and Continental even has an InTech V8 to make it feel better ) and their long term qualities are both questionable ( both of them from mid ’90s are frequently seen as rust buckets with faded headlights, broken clear coat, sagging suspension for Continental too ) but this is the type of car bringing much profit in sedan market, and target buyers are just right: usually the first senior owner won’t drive the big sedan too hard, and they want the value with luxury, the corners must be cut somewhere.
But the story really went wrong for Continental, as it was far outshined by Town Car especially after the ’98 redesign ( same price doesn’t help neither ), and resource went to Navigator. When Lincoln LS was released, it didn’t occupy the same market as the Continental, and Town Car became the ultimate senior person’s car until the car became way too senior itself. At the same time, Lexus LS was more or less neglected in the market in favor of ES and more resource went to RX.
Apart from ES, the only other option on the market for this particular type of car is larger Buick ( but Buick has stigma of being out of fashion on east/west coasts? ) however, it looks like the newer MKZ gets back to this market by getting bigger and a bit more fancier after the redesign, and I do see plenty of senior people driving them around even in baby blue or cheese color.
Brendan, nice write-up on another nearly forgotten Japanese car from the 90s. To me this car is like the Jan Brady of the Lexus line, the middle sister desperately trying to stand out from her shining siblings, and never quite succeeding. I’d actually argue that by not getting this car right, Lexus really missed their shot at permanently earning their spot on the hallowed ground occupied by the Germans. To me, Audi has actually managed to become what Lexus had the potential to be: a stylish, slightly softer alternative to the German establishment of BMW and MB. And where did Lexus miss the boat? By not fielding a class-leading middle sedan. Think of 1994: there was the unique and beautiful SC; the conservative, value-packed LS; and the ES, a handsome car that seemed far nicer than its price point would suggest. In the middle of that line-up, you have this? I wonder what the in-house designs for a middle sedan might have looked like, and would those have been better at cementing the Lexus identity? Buying an off-the-rack Italian design, cast off from Jaguar (who all these years later is still looking to establish their post William Lyons identity), seemed like an odd choice for the bold Japanese luxury brand that was storming the U.S. Perhaps it was an attempt to gain a foothold in Europe? Obviously that didn’t work… Subsequent generations of the GS haven’t worked either, though they may have sold relatively better than this one. In fact, the GS that followed this car was, to my eyes at least, one of the worst looking Lexus cars ever. The GS is better now, but the attempt at a sporty image somehow doesn’t seem quite right. It’s reminiscent of a middle-aged dad suiting up in NFL gear to go out with the big boys–maybe he can pull it off, but it just doesn’t seem natural or sustainable. So, at the critical crossroad of becoming a 21st century Buick or a 21st century Audi, here was the first wrong turn Lexus took.
My working title for this article was actually “The Jan Brady of the Lexus Family”.
Clever title, and an excellent article. I had forgotten about these Lexii, but I’m forgiven as they weren’t sold here.
It’s interesting how Lexus still struggles with the dichotomy of its two most commercially successful models (ES and RX) making up the bulk of Lexus’ sales in their biggest market, while chasing BMW and Mercedes with their quite compelling IS-GS-LS trio. The LS seems to have really declined in significance for their brand with every successive generation and the GS is always outsold by the Germans. It seems the ES/RX are just too profitable for Lexus to eliminate.
Lexus maintains a slightly cleaner and less outlandish design for the ES, although the new RX has definitely aligned itself with the IS/RC/etc in terms of design. I wonder if Toyota is trying to gradually differentiate the ES/RX more from the RWD Lexii without alienating the older and more traditional Lexus buyers. Cadillac has been a bit wilder in shifting from its older clientele: the XTS may be a [quite profitable] Epsilon-based sedan, but it is much more dramatic-looking than the DTS and it has the same tech-heavy, CUE-equipped interior as other Caddies, something I’m sure a lot of older customers had to adjust to (or maybe didn’t, and left for Lincoln). Soon, the XTS will be gone and if there are any FWD Caddies left, they will be crossovers.
For what an in-house-designed version would have looked like, maybe consider the S140 Crown Majesta, which came out at the same time as the JDM Aristo and rode the same platform.
My dim recollection (and I may be mistaken on this) is that unlike the LS/Celsior and ES300/Windom, the Aristo was not originally intended as a Lexus. The Japanese market in the late ’80s and early ’90s was big on sporty “personal sedans” like the Nissan Cefiro, which I think to some extent absorbed the previous market for big luxury coupes. However, my understanding is that for affluent younger buyers, European luxury cars remained significantly more prestigious. My assumption is that the Aristo was an attempt to repackage the Crown Majesta platform into something more yuppie-friendly, with European-style looks from Italdesign.
It’s interesting how certain Lexus and Infiniti models were designed specifically to be Lexuii or Infinitis (LS, Q45, ES300) but some were just hastily thrown into the lineup to fill a slot (ES250, M30, G20). Others seem to be less clear, because they were all sold in Japan anyway, as were the NA-aimed ones.
What about the Infiniti J30, I30/I35, the Lexus SC, etc? Were these all designed with NA a priority?
Hmm. The Z30 Lexus SC was designed with the expectation that it would be both the next Soarer and a new Lexus. Lexus had considered bringing the Z20 Soarer to the U.S., but decided that it would be considered dated, which is what happened to the Leopard when it became the Infiniti M30. So, I think that was a neither/nor.
The J30 was sold in Japan as the Leopard J. Ferie, which was a direct replacement for the Leopard/M30 coupe. The F31 Leopard had sold poorly in Japan (the Z20 Soarer ate it for breakfast), but the first (A31) Cefiro sedan had sold well, so I assume Nissan said, “Okay, let’s make the Leopard a personal sedan, too.” The Leopard J. Ferie debuted six or seven months after the Aristo (although it would have been in the works well before that), but I think had a roughly similar raison d’être and a similar price spread.
I have no idea when in the development process Nissan decided it should be an Infiniti, although I suspect they recognized from when the M30 arrived (if not before) that it was kind of a placeholder. For what it’s worth, I do think the J. Ferie made more sense in a JDM context than as an Infiniti — the J30 seemed like a shot in the dark as far as the U.S. market was concerned. (Which doesn’t necessarily mean anything either way…)
I believe the I30 was essentially a second-generation (A32) Nissan Cefiro with a different grille, the biggest of the available normally aspirated engines, and more equipment. It strikes me as mostly a cost/consolidation move; the A31 Cefiro had had a pretty sophisticated RWD platform, but the A32 was twinned with the de-contented ’95 Maxima (with its “multilink beam” rear suspension). My guess is that it was a two-birds/one-stone deal — a cheaper Cefiro for the home market, a direct rival for the ES300 in the U.S.
So many JDM-exclusive cars, I didn’t even realize the first Cefiro existed although now that I look at it, it looks familiar. Interesting it switched from RWD to FWD, and then essentially became a flossier Maxima before making way for the Teana. Cefiro 1 was quite a looker, I’m surprised Infiniti didn’t steal it.
I can see the Soarer 2G flopping merely because of its very 1980s styling. The M30 was a sales disaster and Soarer 2G probably would have been the same. I am an admirer of Soarer 1G, though. Didn’t you write a detailed article on it? I recall reading an excellent Soarer article…
I did all the Soarers last summer. Both the Z10 and Z20 were very successful in Japan, but by the time the Z20 would have been introduced in the U.S., it would have been barely a year from the end of its life cycle — it probably would have also been compared with the AE92 Corolla coupe, which actually followed the Z20 in Japan (and was presumably intended to look like it).
You have a point about the A31 Cefiro: It might well have made a better mid-level Infiniti than the M30 coupe.
The es 300/Windom /Camry was always going to be a Lexus Toyota spent a lot of time and expense developing that car in its various grades the sound deadening was beyond anything else when it was released the hydraulic fan motors for quiet operation all pointed to a more luxurious application than just the Camry.
I’m also endlessly amused that Toyota advertised the Windom in Japan as the JDM version of the Lexus ES300.
Once the GS gained a V8 and the SC coupes (with real back seats) died out in 2000 the GS had more of a reason to exist.
Personally I’m more of an LS man but then I’ve always appreciated stately luxury with a quiet interior.
Just for my understanding, is this the model you get in the US (the below is the GS300h offered in Austria, see http://www.lexus.at/car-models/gs/gs-300h/index.tmex#/Introduction)?
Yeah that’s the one.
I always liked the second generation GS, particularly the later GS430.
If I remember correctly, the first gen ES was also a dud… another victim of badge engineering.
Apparently I’m in the minority on this one–I think the first-gen GS300 is an absolutely beautiful car. Love the proportions, love the very un Lexus-like vertical bar grille, love the high decklid, the taillight design. Front, back, side, from an angle, it’s just a damn good-looking car. Does it have Lexus DNA? Well, maybe not, but at the time I don’t know if there really was such a thing. there was the LS400…the ES250, which was a throwaway…the SC300/400, which was a beautiful car that shared nothing with the big LS except for a few details…and the first ES300, which was a Camry with a nose job. So I didn’t and still don’t think this car looked so out of place. the ES and LS did look more or less like siblings, but I don’t know that they had a unifying design language at the time other than “nicer Toyota”. Plus, in my opinion, they butchered the follow-up to this car–the second-gen GS takes every good detail of the first-gen and ruins it. One of my least favorite Lexus designs. And since then, the GS has been relatively anonymous. Pleasant, sure, but not a standout in performance or styling. An also-ran.
Where this car did get it wrong was in powerplant and price. Not offering the V8 was a big mis-step, as 210 HP in a car this size just didn’t really get it done compared to BMW, especially as in 1993 they were transitioning from the 2.5/3.5 I6 in the 5-series to the 3.0/4.0 V8. The price *might* have been justified with the V8, and then the I6 model could have come in lower as the value model. That would have been a lineup worthy of the car’s elegant style.
Didn’t the JDM Aristo also offer, along with the V8 and this NA I6, the same twin-turbo version of this motor found in the Supra (2JZ-GTE)? Or am I making that up? Now *that* would have been something, even more so than the V8. A predecessor of sorts to the current F-sport line.
Didn’t the JDM Aristo also offer, along with the V8 and this NA I6, the same twin-turbo version of this motor found in the Supra (2JZ-GTE)?
It sure did, the 3.0V. Also, it is important to note that the V8 (4.0Z i-four) models were all-wheel drive only.
The poor showing of the early GS may be explained by this: the LS400 was initially priced closer to the typically-optioned E Class Benz than the S Class. As such, it sucked up a lot of E Class buyers as well as S Class buyers. That eventually changed, as MBZ lowered E Class prices and the LS moved more clearly into S Class territory. But that initial impact of the LS400 was very important, and established its dominance and image at the expense of the GS.
A large percentage of folks that buy cars in this class chose a car that is “in”or “hot”, because a big part of their decision is to project the image that they are part of a group of like-minded “tribe”. The GS was shunned at first, and simply never became an “in” car, like the LS and the ES.
Yes, the true enthusiast buyers might not think that way, but they’re hardly a significant factor in Lexus’ success. So I don’t think that that the lack of a V8 was a big factor.
The lack of bright trim on the gen1 GS also hurt it, in my opinion. It doesn’t look as perky as the LS and ES; instead it looks more serious and a bit dour or understated. That is not consistent with the typical Lexus buyer.
When a model gets off to a poor start, it can be hampered forever. By the time the GS solved some of its issues, the Germans had become much more aggressive with their prices and other qualities, and Audi was very ascendant at this time.
The GS would have needed to come out of the gates very strongly in order to establish a niche, but it failed to do so, for the reasons stated. And it’s never really become a success since then.
I always loved the look of this but Toyota made a huge mistake not including the powertrain from the Supra Turbo.
Instead of being an over-priced Japanese E-Class, it could have been a Poor Man’s M5.
I assume Lexus was uneasy about making the mid-tier car more powerful than the flagship.
Probably but a Turbo with 5 Speed Manual would have appealed to a different demographic, like the M5 v. 740.
At any rate it was a sad waste of a beautiful car. In NA at least – I’m under the impression that there was a Toyota brand JDM version of the Gen-1 GS with a much hotter powertrain (Per the comment above, the Aristo).
Yes, the Aristo 3.0V had essentially the Supra Turbo powertrain, although it was automatic-only. (If they’d offered it with a manual transmission, I imagine they would have sold maybe three of them that way. Even on the Soarer 2.5T, I think most buyers ordered automatic.)
Perhaps. Although at that time, BMW still sold a fair number of manual trans cars (and the M versions may still have been 100% manual at that time).
But even with the AW4 Auto they put in those, it would have been epic, that transmission being easily capable of high torque applications. The same basic trans has a great reputation in Jeep use.
Aristos arent uncommon here exJDM Ive never seen or heard of a manual one in fact manual trans Japanese cars are quite rare.
I’ve never seen one of these without delaminated/foggy taillights. Same goes for the 1992-1997 Cadillac Seville and the 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix. Was there some type of “environmentally friendly” process that plastic suppliers were moving to in the ’90s that ultimately backfired, much like peeling paint on American cars?
The inner portion of the taillights on the second-generation GS also discolor badly.
I love the SC300/400 of this era, but the first GS does nothing for me, despite the Italian influence. It’s watered down from the concept and looks too much like a Corolla on steroids – even the ES looks more unique and fresh to me.
On the other hand, I have always liked the second-generation GS, even if it’s starting to look dated.
There seemed to be a short lived fad placing a clear lens on top of a red colored lens like this to give the taillights more depth.
Come to think of it this sort of the harbinger of the later first gen IS/Altezza, which took it to the next level by minimizing the red and cladding it all in chrome, creating the much loathed clear taillight craze that swept the import scene in the 00s.
For years I thought the inner tail lights were a second set of reverse lights due to the red fading away.
I think the rising U.S. prices of Japanese luxury cars in the ’90s was due in very large part to unfavorable exchange rates. The JDM prices of the Celsior and Aristo really remained very steady into the mid-90s and are generally pretty comparable to U.S. prices on an exchange rate basis — it’s just that the strength of the yen relative to the dollar made it harder to hold the line in the U.S.
These never made it here. They are a much more harmonious design than their successor, although I am quite fond of the 3rd and 4th generation GSs. It’s a shame, though, that there is no longer a V8 option or even a TTV6. Toyota seems to be so far behind in engine/transmission development: weaksauce 2.5 V6 is only just making way for a turbo four years after other companies developed one, four-speed auto still appears in the Yaris and Corolla, etc etc.
Love the look and interior of the 06-12 GS, love the way the 98-05 drives!
I prefer the second gen interiors to the first gen and later ones, if there was anything I had good to say about my Dad’s GS it was that. The layout, materials, quality and durability were all superb, whereas I found the first generations to be generic Japanese blah, and the 04+ itterations way cheapened. Every single surface including the entire dash and the door panels were wrapped in soft leather(or at least a very convincing pleather) in the second generation, the 04 seemed to go with more hard plastic caps for stuff with a very lumpy fake looking grain for the leather like materials like most modern interiors are currently plagued with.
These cars will always carry a strong travel memory with me.
In 1995, I rented a silver GS sedan for $200/week from Enterprise. I needed to go to Philly/Atl. City/NYC during July.
The car got a lot of looks (I guess it looked expensive to people). It had only 5,000 miles on it and I remember sitting in downtown NYC when it was (according to the car) 105 degrees outside. I had the A/C blowing away and the engine never got near overheating once.
It was a nice road trip. Well, except for the $185 speeding ticket acquired in Pennsylvania.
Aristo/Celsior front cuts are popular with the speedway crowd here for the alloy V8 motors no need to buy a whole car and hack it up.
Not to be a troll, but why do so many of Eugene’s CCs have gross interiors?
I mean, c’mon, take a wet wipe to that armrest at least. Blech.
Italian-styled with 90s Toyota mechanicals?
Good enough for me.
–
The wheels do kind of small by contemporary styles, and perhaps even in 1993. A modern Toyota wheel may really work well here.
–
Just don’t let any body part of a modern Toyota get near it. The Ugly contagion could be spread by air, and it would be like watching Jeff Goldblum change into The Fly.