It’s a little hard to realize that this is nearly a fifteen year old design now, as it presaged a number of trends (jeweled taillights, the quarter window in front of the door, the ‘riding high’ station wagon dressed as a SUV) that remain popular today. Let’s take a little time to remember this pioneer.
The RX started out as a hybrid of a luxury sedan and SUV, first appearing in the designer’s minds in 1993. The first production model showed up as the Toyota Harrier in 1997 before crossing the Pacific wearing Lexus badges in 1999. Ford and GM were busy hocking SUVs as wagons, but Toyota correctly sensed that what most folks wanted was something that looked truck-ish, but was a car underneath . Unlike AMC, they could afford to do the job properly, rather than jacking up an elderly platform and sticking a Jeep underneath it.
And as usual in this timeframe, they were correct. The model took off, and soon everyone was trying to cash in. One only need to look at the market today vs. 1997: The Ford Explorer is now a CUV based on a platform with Volvo roots, and the competition from GM has also migrated to the same concept. Indeed, it seems like Chrysler is one of the few manufacturers using “traditional,” dedicated SUV platform with the Durango (I would categorize the Journey as a Minivan), though even the new Cherokee has shifted to a Fiat C-segment platform.
As Paul has pointed out, this gem re-invented the car, for better or worse. I myself think it’s for the better, as it really does jibe more effectively with what the majority of buyers expect in a family car than a boulder-hopping SUV that never sees its intended terrain or a minivan that the fashion conscious would cringe at being seen in. The fact that it was built well enough to remain a common sight fifteen years after its debut is just the icing on a very nice cake.
Toyota seems to have a horse shoe inserted. The competition does this and is castigated for “brand engineering”. I guess it really does depend on how well your new frankenstein is initially designed and put together. I would argue the Pacifica pre-saged this segment, yet didn’t sell no matter how much incentive money was offered. My recall is that it was impressive to drive, too, but I cannot remember if it came in AWD. Maybe I am guilty of selective memory?
The Pacifica sold because I had two, still have one of them, both AWD.
The RX lacks any macho pretentions and the ladies seem to love the look. It pretty much looks the same as it did when it was introduced. The only problem this vehicle has is that it’s a victim of it’s own success. Coming out of the grocery store looking for your silver RX can be a problem as every 5th car seems to be a silver RX! That’s a good or bad thing depending on how you see the glass, half full or half empty. Clearly , without the RX , Lexus dealers wouldn’t be doing so well.
“It pretty much looks the same as it did when it was introduced.”
I agree, it was a good design for its time but today’s models are generic, I don’t even know how many generations there have been, much less able to tell them apart.
For the record, I hate jeweled lights. Can’t see the turn signals in the sun. The second worst trend of modern cars IMO, behind only poor visibility.
Personally I love the latest generation’s lines – they’ve definitely ‘butched’ up the look a little.
I too hate clear-lensed/sparkly tail lights. Looks cheap and punkish.
The Pacifica didn’t come out until 2004.
The RAV4 and CR-V were earlier entries in this market but they were a bit too crude for the family segment in their first generations. The RX300 was the first really nice family crossover.
Thank you for the correction – I should have known Chrysler would be late to the party. Selective memory is just my excuse.
“I should have known Chrysler would be late to the party” Chrysler wasn’t late to anything. What an odd comment.
I remember one of the first domestics that was made for this segment specifically was the Buick Rendezvous, which was out as a 2002 in mid 2001, they were the last cars I ever sold before I got out of the retail car business altogether. It’s interesting how this category has blown up compared to what it was back then. The Rendezvous was of course, a spawn of the Aztek, which was one of the first cars in this segment as well, but of course we know how all of that ended up.
The Rendezvous was actually a pretty nice vehicle and was rather popular here in flyover country where its customers had good long relationships with their Buick dealers. My father thought it was a practical car and thought of getting one, but Mom always preferred her minivan.
If somebody would show me a reasonably priced crossover that could handle 4′ wide building materials I’d probably be interested in such a thing. But I don’t think they exist. The minivan selection is not optimal – the Chrysler products are still too unreliable and the Toyota and Honda are too expensive as used vehicles. So I guess the ’04 Durango has to stay, because it’s cheap, durable and practical.
But don’t you think the Renezvous was hideous? Just a little better than the Aztek design wise, IMO.
Eh, I wouldn’t go all the way to “hideous”. More like “acceptable”. Not as attractive as the RX or most new crossovers, but they don’t send women and children screaming and running away like the Aztek did. Reasonably reliable relative to other domestics of the era too, though they all had the V6 engines with intake manifold gasket problems.
I think that “hideous” might apply to the Pontiac Aztec’s styling. I would not say the Rendezvous was styling was good, but also not bad either. The Rendezvous’s styling seemed awkward to me.
Part of the reason for the RX’s success, IMO, was that the initial versions avoided looking too conservative. As successful as Toyota is, it seems that fresh styling and real innovation comes seldomly, but I see the same ambitious design in this car that I also saw in the first Lexus LS (not just a Benz clone) and the Previa (which was a victim of its price tag and lack of power, but well-liked because of its styling and quality).
Subsequent RXs have become a bit more domestic in appearance, but then again, the first-gen was so damn popular, it was banal soon after its launch anyway. That doesn’t mean, of course, that these didn’t look totally fresh when they were new; nothing else shouted “city slicker” as proudly. Besides, what alternative was there at the time, the shoddy Mercedes ML?
Perry, I agree with everything you mentioned and in addition to that the RX has been so successful because of resale value and dependability; which I am sure are tied together in this case. We did not own the first generation of RX but have owned two of each generation since. The amazing thing is no one of those have ever returned to the dealership for any kind of malfunction or failure. Add to that I have an LS that has never returned for any problems either. And the customer service is unbelievable. Our dealership drives an hour and 45 minutes at no charge to us when complimentary oil changes are due and always lives us a new loaner RX or GS. Wild horse could not drag me back to a Mercedes showroom. If I ever do return to a Mercedes showroom or any other, I will get what I deserve.
> Indeed, it seems like Chrysler is one of the few manufacturers using “traditional,” dedicated SUV platform with the Durango (I would categorize the Journey as a Minivan), though even the new Cherokee has shifted to a Fiat C-segment platform.
I consider the Journey a CUV, and that’s what Dodge touts it as. Wikipedia says it rides on a modified Dodge Avenger platform, and it doesn’t have sliding side doors, which is a hallmark of minivans. The current Durango is a stretched Grand Cherokee, which has always been considered an SUV despite having unibody architecture, so no disagreement there.
As for the featured Lexus, I’d say it still looks fairly current today, and wouldn’t stand out in a crowd of newer CUVs. I have a beef with the taillights though. I’ve always hated the, “Let’s ignore the shape of the opening and stick a round lens in it!” school of thought on taillight styling.
These RX’s are the “Country Squire” of the 2000-10’s. Since they last so long, all the older ones are in Wal Mart parking lots. Have any appered in ‘U Pull it’ lots yet?
Women love RX’s and men love Explorers or Tahoes.
Men love the RX because it makes their women so happy. My cousin is getting ready to purchase her third. Coming out of several M-Bs with electrical and A/C gremlins with less than satisfactory dealer resolution, imagine the joy of a new RX in 2002 that required nothing but maintenance for years and a dealer that sent flowers on birthdays. No wonder these became omnipresent in SoCal.
I went to a party at a doctor’s house in San Diego a couple years ago. It seemed like my car was the only one there that wasn’t a Lexus RX. The two doctors I knew there were both single. The hostess used her RX to haul her surfboards. The other one was a single guy with a dog. He told me he was trading his flawless RX for another one, as the new one had a higher airbag count and he sometimes drove his sister’s children. Lexus is perfect for people that have important jobs that don’t allow them the ‘luxury’ of knowing every one of their dealer’s service writers on a first name basis.
The RX is a luxury class midsize crossover, comparable to the Mercedes M class and the BMW X5. Cadillac’s entry was the SRX, which Car & Driver picked as first choice in their annual comparison test for a number of years till an Acura took first in 2007 or 2008.
I would not call the Aztec luxury class, and while the Rendezvous was perhaps more upmarket, still not luxury class in my opinion. I don’t recall what all C&D considered luxury midsize crossovers to be.
The basis for comparison more is the transverse V6/unibody layout.
The RX is a fine car, but you’ll notice in the upcoming CC effect that, for whatever bizarre reasons of demographics or attitudes of ownership, it is on average the slowest car to be behind.
Just watch. Don’t judge, don’t hate…their drivers are getting somewhere comfortably and silently, after all…but marvel at this effect.
We followed an RX for a short while last night on the way out to dinner whose driver was absolutely clueless. She pulled out in front of me and I’m sure she didn’t see me coming, despite being in a bright red car. I followed her for several blocks until reaching a multi-lane street where I could pass; in those few blocks she wobbled back and forth and did not exceed 20 MPH, on a road marked for 35. As I passed her I could see that the driver was a 50-55 year old woman with freshly coiffed hair who was talking on her cell phone.
Now, having said that, I have found that generally speaking the worst driven and most obstructionist vehicles on the road are Corollas. It seems that these are invariably purchased by people who don’t like cars and view them just as transportation appliances. Other cars that I usually give extra space too are Buicks and Mercury Grand Marquis’, because they are often being driven by elderly drivers who don’t enough attention to what is going on around them.
We must be getting desperate for curbside classics here…. anyone seen a 66 Dodge Dart for a write up and photos?
I understand it’s inclusion as a CC. It was a stunning wake-up design in 1999, and it’s significance and effect on the market is noted.
The RX is by far the best selling Lexus – obviously Toyota knowledgeably rolled the dice and struck gold.
CC effect strikes again,I’ve just seen one in Waking the Dead where Trevor Eve is set up for drink driving
These cars are so common in my neighboorhood east of Seattle that I don’t even notice them (and neither do the cops)! I’d say that the most common color in my area on the RX is the beige metallic (or whatever it is called) – the silver SUVs are all CRVs!
Is it just me or are these cars usually driven by people who can’t really drive that well? I know I’m bad about stereotyping certain vehicles and their drivers but sometimes it’s fun to do.
awwww…my parents bought this exact vehicle in the spring of 1999. Same red color and everything. They still have it and they prefer driving it over their 2009 ES350. I drive it occasionally when I visit them. I admit that it’s not my type of vehicle; it’s kind of ponderous and the turning radius annoys me.
However…I remember when it was new, the styling was definitely “pioneering,” different from anything else on the road at the time. And 15 years later, there’s just no way to describe its quality as anything other than astounding. My parents’ RX300 is just as solid and quiet as when it was new. It doesn’t even rattle. Everything works on it. It’s demanded nothing but routine maintenance. There’s no rust. They don’t drive much these days and it has just over 100K, but still, it’s a 15 year old car that’s lived most of its life over NYC area roads, and they quit taking it to the Lexus dealer years ago.
In many ways I think this was built during the glory days of Toyota. I wonder if we’ll see anything as breakthrough, between style, design and quality, ever again.
It’s a bit post glory days, but it was conceived as a JDM vehicle first, which would explain the less-cautious approach to design and more generous materials used.
Indeed – the vast majority we have in NZ are the Toyota Harrier badged version.
I don’t even know if we got the Lexus verson over here? I should, but I don’t lol!
It also sold really, really well in Japan in the late ’90s, particularly considering that the Harrier was not at all cheap or cheap to run.
For anyone looking for a single answer for why Toyota mostly got out of the sporty-car business for quite a while, this would be it. When it debuted, the Harrier outsold all of Toyota’s sporty coupes (Supra, Soarer, Celica/Curren, MR2, Levin/Trueno, and Cynos) combined by a margin of something like 3 to 1. I gather that this was what people with money started buying instead of fancy luxury coupes like the Soarer and Cosmo.
Something that really baffled me the other day was that Lexus recently announced the new NX crossover, which is aimed mainly at European buyers. Although the press flacks were going on about how the NX was an exciting new game-changing vehicle concept, it looks so much like the current RX that I had to study the specs to see how it actually differed other than some slight detail variations. The answer was that the NX is about 5 inches shorter than the current RX — although I think you’d have to see them parked side by side to notice — and, like the first Harrier, will have a four-cylinder engine option that we will probably not get. I suppose a slightly smaller package would be a bit more wieldy in urban driving (and might have a shorter turning radius, which would be helpful), but a revolutionary new idea? I know disproportionate enthusiasm is the basic tenet of PR hype, but come on now.
Which is unfortunate because the original RX/Harrier was indeed a game-changer and I think Toyota would be entitled to crow about that a little, even if the upshot is “It’s the same concept you love, but now in a 15/16ths-scale version!”
The first gen Lexus RX is a lot better looking than the current one which looked like a older and fatter version of the 1st gen. Even the interior look worse in the current gen. although functionally it’s better.
These vehicles are a “decent” soft roader it is weird to see one become a beater.
…you feel ‘safe’ in these things ..i think that is a strong part of the appeal and popularity of them …not to mention the obvious ‘quality’ of the entire vehicle ..then like the proverbial comfortable slipper you just become permanently attached and don’t go looking for a replacement ..a very good product by Toyota!
The first big Mitsubishi Pajero’s (Montero’s) were a similar example of the type but were a far cruder progenitor crossover (and if you could look past the terribly unreliable 4D56T engine the early ones had)..
I’ve never liked the styling of these, and the Acura MDX which followed in much the same style annoys me even more. They somehow look egg-shaped to me (and not like the Previa, which was egg-shaped in a good way).
Then again I really don’t like SUVs/CUVs/Crossovers in general. The only one I’d consider would be a Ford Flex, and that’s probably because of how reminiscient it is of an older full-size station wagon.
I fully realize I’m an oddball in this regard.
I know it’s not the kind of vehicle most of us get excited about, and I took a long time to come around on CUVs myself, but it’s tough to overstate just how influential the RX was. At the time, I wasn’t really sure if I liked the styling or not, but with 15 years of hindsight, I think it still looks remarkably fresh and new even today. Toyota was way ahead of their time on this one.
Despite their foresight, I didn’t really get Lexus at all back then. I liked the original SC and admired the GS and LS, but all of them seemed so damn stuffy with their “Deluxe Gold Trim” options and whatnot. And the ES? Or whatever their rebadged Land Cruiser was called? The Germans at least knew how to let their hair down, and both Acura and Infiniti had built a bunch of interesting cars in the 90s. Lexus seemed anti-fun in comparison and I just wasn’t feeling it.
The IS300 was the first car that really turned me on to some of their finer and more subtle qualities, and the SportCross is still my favorite Lexus ever. The 2nd gen. RX, especially the 400h model, also swayed me. I did think they looked somewhat bloated and awkward, but by that time I was more appreciative of the concept of a “rolling isolation tank” and the hybrid drivetrain meshed so well with all the other Lexus attributes. Actually getting up close and personal with one was a revelation.
Maybe it’s just because I wasn’t into them at all in the 90s, but unlike most people, I prefer their more recent efforts to the “classics”. The LS600hL, LFA, IS F, CT200h… even the current Avalon-based ES is the best one they ever built, IMO.
There’s actually a bunch of RX400h/450h taxis running around NYC – 32mpg city and 300hp… who needs a Crown Vic? They’re nearly as roomy inside, just as comfortable and have much more cargo space, too. This might seem like an insane choice considering the price, but these cabs are in constant use and can do more than 70k miles a year. The $$ saved on fuel starts adding up rapidly at that pace. I’ve tried to flag them down many times, but they always seem to be occupied!