Are Lexus just rebadged Toyotas?

[Esceptico]

This came up on another thread.

Back in the late eighties Toyota decided to create a luxury brand because, particularly outside Japan, they presumably correctly perceived that some people are snobs and are less prepared to buy a luxury car from a manufacturer that also makes small runarounds. Other Japanese manufacturers did the same.

In Japan their luxury cars continued to be badged as Toyotas until 2005 so presumably one of the most famous Lexus and one that established the brand outside Japan - the LS400 - was badged a Toyota.

In my mind Lexus are just rebadged Toyotas and it is pure marketing puff. They are made by Toyota, the CEO is the same and they don’t have a prior existence or history. That they are sold by separate dealers is just part of their marketing plan.

I would put MINI in the same category. They are just BMWs. If you have driven a new Mini you have a BMW. Designed, developed, planned and signed off by BMW. But with a clever marketing plan to play on people’s memory of the original Mini.

I think other cases are more difficult. Lamborghini has been part of the VW group for some time and there is sharing of parts and overall management from VW. Yet they did exist separately before the takeover. They possibly fall between the two stools, not being a full manufacturer yet more than just a brand.

[Esceptico]

SAS Tom said:

No they aren’t just rebadged Toyotas given the fact that no Lexus and Toyota look the same.

They do however share many parts and on my Lexus the doors are even stamped Toyota.

ETA I’ve just remembered I’m wrong, some Lexus’ and Toyota’s are the same but I believe only in Japan.

Edited by SAS Tom on Friday 4th February 23:06

So they are designed by Toyota. Built by Toyota, but at the factory they put on a Lexus badge and hey presto, now its a Lexus which apparently is not a Toyota.

Clearly their marketing BS is working on some people.

I don’t have any against Toyota, quite the opposite. I’d be no more or less likely to buy a Lexus if it wore a Toyota badge.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

Similarly a VW is just a Skoda OP?

Probably. Skoda existed before it was taken over by VW but I am not sure there is much carryover from Skoda pre VW to current Skodas that seem quite closely related to VW models (same chassis, same engines, etc).

[Esceptico]

CABC said:

Esceptico said:

So they are designed by Toyota. Built by Toyota, but at the factory they put on a Lexus badge and hey presto, now its a Lexus which apparently is not a Toyota.

Clearly their marketing BS is working on some people.

yep. bit like that VW Chiron and Skoda Huracan.

what you sit on, touch and electronically interact with on a Lexus is different to a Toyota, even if they share the TGNA platform for example. that's what 99% of people judge a car by.

There isn’t much in common between the cheapest A series and and AMG GT, S class or Project One yet you presumably don’t have a problem in thinking of them all as Mercedes? What is the difference with Toyota?

[Esceptico]

DanL said:

I think the problem is with the word “just”, as from what’s been written in the thread they aren’t taking a Toyota, changing the badge, and sending it out.

Are Acuras just rebadged Hondas? Yes.

Are Lexuses just rebadged Toyotas? No.

If it’s a different car, it’s clearly more than “just” a marketing exercise.

I think my use of the word “just” in the title of the thread has put all the Lexus owners on here on the defensive. In retrospect a poor choice of word on my part as no slight to Lexus cars was intended.

Clearly Toyota don’t make two identical cars any more and put a Toyota badge on one and a Lexus badge on the other. That would be stupid because the whole point of Lexus is to put a distance between ordinary Toyotas and luxury Toyotas ie Lexus (plural of Lexus = Lexi?)

Some people pointing out that Lexus are different from Toyotas is missing the point. Of course they are different. They are the luxury cars made by Toyota. Buyers spending £100k have completely different expectations than someone spending £20k. If I buy a base 1 series I don’t expect the same quality than if I were buying the top 7 series.

[Esceptico]

Swoxy said:

Do you think a Rolls Royce is just a BMW?

When was Rolls Royce formed? How many cars were produced before the company was bought by BMW? How many staff remained after the acquisition? How independent is RR today? Do current RRs reflect decades of history of when RR was independent?

Those are the sorts of questions I would ask to decide. Not easy. Now apply similar to Lexus….er it was just an name invented by Toyota for their luxury cars they were selling overseas. No history. No independent existence. No staff. No design history that doesn’t come from Toyota.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

Esceptico said:

When was Rolls Royce formed? How many cars were produced before the company was bought by BMW? How many staff remained after the acquisition? How independent is RR today? Do current RRs reflect decades of history of when RR was independent?

Those are the sorts of questions I would ask to decide. Not easy. Now apply similar to Lexus….er it was just an name invented by Toyota for their luxury cars they were selling overseas. No history. No independent existence. No staff. No design history that doesn’t come from Toyota.

What a strange viewpoint.

So by your logic a Bugatti Veyron is a Skoda? They were developed by exactly the same company.

Edited by Dingu on Saturday 5th February 19:13

As far as I know there is no connection at all between the original Bugatti and VW Bugatti. It is just a badge that the VW group put on the Veyron, which is 100% VW. I am not sure about Skoda. It was a functioning manufacturer when VW bought it but not sure what, if anything, has been carried over.

[Esceptico]

Dr Jekyll said:

Esceptico said:

When was Rolls Royce formed? How many cars were produced before the company was bought by BMW? How many staff remained after the acquisition? How independent is RR today? Do current RRs reflect decades of history of when RR was independent?

Those are the sorts of questions I would ask to decide. Not easy. Now apply similar to Lexus….er it was just an name invented by Toyota for their luxury cars they were selling overseas. No history. No independent existence. No staff. No design history that doesn’t come from Toyota.

BMW didn't buy the company VW did. BMW just got the right to put the name on cars.

Memory fail on my part. So current RR are just BMWs then.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

Esceptico said:

Dingu said:

Esceptico said:

When was Rolls Royce formed? How many cars were produced before the company was bought by BMW? How many staff remained after the acquisition? How independent is RR today? Do current RRs reflect decades of history of when RR was independent?

Those are the sorts of questions I would ask to decide. Not easy. Now apply similar to Lexus….er it was just an name invented by Toyota for their luxury cars they were selling overseas. No history. No independent existence. No staff. No design history that doesn’t come from Toyota.

What a strange viewpoint.

So by your logic a Bugatti Veyron is a Skoda? They were developed by exactly the same company.

Edited by Dingu on Saturday 5th February 19:13

As far as I know there is no connection at all between the original Bugatti and VW Bugatti. It is just a badge that the VW group put on the Veyron, which is 100% VW. I am not sure about Skoda. It was a functioning manufacturer when VW bought it but not sure what, if anything, has been carried over.

So you think they should have called it the Volkswagen Veyron?

VW correctly surmised that however impressive the Veyron was, far fewer people would have bought it had they stuck a VW badge on the back. So they resurrected the Bugatti name. The fact that you don’t seem to think it is a VW shows the power of brands and marketing.

The power of brands is amazing. When we moved back to the UK I bought a pack of Shreddies (nostalgia as used to eat them as a child). A few weeks later when I went to buy another pack I noticed that the supermarket’s own brand was half the price so bought those instead. Taste wasn’t exactly the same. Some time later they had a special deal on Shreddies making them about the same price as the own brand so I thought I would try them again but found that actually I preferred the home brand. (Then I realised that neither were particularly healthy as heavily processed and swapped to porridge).

[Esceptico]

hyphen said:

Esceptico said:

VW correctly surmised that however impressive the Veyron was, far fewer people would have bought it had they stuck a VW badge on the back. So they resurrected the Bugatti name. The fact that you don’t seem to think it is a VW shows the power of brands and marketing.

It's not a VW. It's a standalone brand within the VAG group.

The VAG group - or more fully - the Volkswagen Group. Hence it is a Volkswagen because it was made by the Volkswagen group. From memory it only came about because of the head of the Volkswagen group wanted to do it. It was funded by Volkswagen no doubt using Volkswagen engineers (or new people recruited by Volkswagen).

A brand is just a name. Used for marketing. They could have called it a Skoda, or an Audi or they could have invented a new name. They used Bugatti because they owned the name and the original Bugatti did make race cars so is evocative.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

I know it’s built by Volkswagen but it is about a similar to your Golf as a Learjet is.

Do you think Skoda, Seat, Audi, Lamborghini etc should all be done away with then? It’s all VW and pointless. Ditto the Stellanis group. We just can have less choice because branding is pointless?

That’s not the power of brands. The own brand cereal varieties are typically, though not always, lower quality.

Do you think that brands are beneficial to customers? If you look at VAG their cars are becoming more and more similar underneath with contrived differences to try to keep the brands separate so that they can charge more for those brands perceived as better, which is why the Huracan is more expensive than the R10 even if they share quite a lot underneath. Same with Porsche and Audi nowadays.

I’m not sure the word “quality” is applicable to highly processed junk food, whether it is branded Heinz or Sainsbury’s. But as proved by your post the known brands are perceived to be better quality, which is why they are more expensive.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

Esceptico said:

The VAG group - or more fully - the Volkswagen Group. Hence it is a Volkswagen because it was made by the Volkswagen group. From memory it only came about because of the head of the Volkswagen group wanted to do it. It was funded by Volkswagen no doubt using Volkswagen engineers (or new people recruited by Volkswagen).

A brand is just a name. Used for marketing. They could have called it a Skoda, or an Audi or they could have invented a new name. They used Bugatti because they owned the name and the original Bugatti did make race cars so is evocative.

Is there an actual point to this thread aside from debating what constitutes a brand?
.

Back in the late 80s Toyota decided that if they wanted to sell luxury Toyotas overseas then it would be better to create a new brand because some people would then believe that when they bought their Toyota it wouldn’t be a Toyota but new brand X (now known as Lexus).

I was wondering how many people had bought into that marketing approach. It seems from the poll result, quite a lot have.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

Esceptico said:

Back in the late 80s Toyota decided that if they wanted to sell luxury Toyotas overseas then it would be better to create a new brand because some people would then believe that when they bought their Toyota it wouldn’t be a Toyota but new brand X (now known as Lexus).

I was wondering how many people had bought into that marketing approach. It seems from the poll result, quite a lot have.

You are completely arbitrary about what you consider a legitimate brand though so it’s all pointless.

And the idea of different branding for different aims is pretty basic business wise. It doesn’t mean a Lexus isn’t a product produced to higher quality which is what you seem to have been angling at.

Edited by Dingu on Saturday 5th February 23:58

I never said the Toyotas branded as Lexus were not a higher quality than basic Toyotas. In fact I said the exact opposite so why are you accusing me of saying so? It is pretty bloody obvious that Toyota wouldn’t be able to compete against the Germans if they tried selling luxury cars with the same quality as an Aygo.

I never said that cars branded as Lexus were inferior to the competition. As someone a bit obsessed with Japan (to the extent of having taught myself the language) I’m probably overly positive towards Japanese manufacturers so certainly not dissing Toyota.

You seem so fixated on the perceived slight to Lexus that you don’t want to comprehend the point being made that it doesn’t reflect well on people that Toyota felt they had to invent a brand to sell their luxury cars because badge snobs wouldn’t have bought them otherwise.

[Esceptico]

Dingu said:

I’m aware of the point you are going for. It’s just so astonishingly silly.
OP brings us branding works shocker. Next week oxygen supports life….

Posters on PH are more interested in and more knowledgeable about cars so I wondered whether they were more savvy to brand manipulation or perhaps more invested in it.

[Esceptico]

Dr Jekyll said:

A few years back British Airways set up a brand called 'Go'. This wasn't because customers are snobs and wouldn't travel BA, it was actually to compete with low cost airlines. It was simply using brand identity to tell people what kind of a product it was.

That is one way to view it. Another is that BA couldn’t afford to reduce the prices on all its flights to the same level as Easyjet and the other budget airlines so it created a separate subsidiary with a different name to try to stop prices falling on its main business.

[Esceptico]

DaveyBoyWonder said:

I think you're a little confused. You're saying a Mini is a BMW but a Lamborghini isn't a VW even though both brands were very much seperate companies before being boought out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_(marque)

According to Wiki the first new Mini was designed by an American working for BMW in Germany and the car was then developed in Germany by BMW. I don’t think it started production until BMW has sold off the Rover Group ie it was produced solely under BMW ownership. So how is it not a BMW?

The Aventador uses a development of the Lamborghini V12 that predated the acquisition by VW. So some connections with the past.

[Esceptico]

CABC said:

Esceptico said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_(marque)

According to Wiki the first new Mini was designed by an American working for BMW in Germany and the car was then developed in Germany by BMW. I don’t think it started production until BMW has sold off the Rover Group ie it was produced solely under BMW ownership. So how is it not a BMW?

first MINI is not a BMW design and has a lot of BL history to it before late project management undertaken by BMW staff. Frank Stephenson was the designer...
The R50 is a modern classic imo. BMW have gradually transformed it into a fwd small BMW. 'Worse' and yet a lot 'better'. vastly different cars.

Perhaps you should contact Wikipedia as the current entry for the new Mini says something different:

“In 1998, BMW set out on creating the production Mini. The first aspect that was considered was the design, which was chosen from 15 full-sized design studies. Five of these designs came from BMW Germany, another five from BMW Designworks in California, four from Rover and one from an outside studio in Italy. The chosen design was from BMW Designworks and was designed by American designer, Frank Stephenson. Stephenson penned the new Mini One R50 and Mini Cooper leading the team which developed the E50 car in Munich (parallel development in England by the team at Rover having been dropped in 1995).[19] “