In 1977, Lincoln rolled out the Versailles, a relatively compact luxury sedan that was very plainly a dressed-up version of the workaday Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch; it was dropped after less than four years and remains the butt of jokes. Twelve years later, Lexus rolled out the ES250, a relatively compact luxury sedan that was very plainly a dressed-up version of the workaday Toyota Camry; it was replaced after two year and is now the forgotten Lexus. Was the Lexus ES250 just a Japanese Versailles? Was the Versailles unfairly maligned? Let’s consider.
Recently, I wrote a post about the 1977–1980 Lincoln Versailles, in which I boxed it about the ears, as one is wont to do when talking about the Lincoln Versailles: It was barely even a half-effort, and its elevated price tag made it seem rather cynical. The Versailles received mostly caustic reviews and only sold about half as well as Lincoln-Mercury had hoped, but it was cheap enough to build and expensive enough to buy that it ended up being a lucrative moneymaker in spite of itself.
As the comments on that post indicated, the Versailles still has its defenders, and they make a number of valid points. Lincoln-Mercury was certainly not the only automaker to indulge in that kind of obvious grille-and-decklid makeover, and if you could set aside the question of what the Versailles ought to have been, it wasn’t a terrible car, as Malaise Era domestic luxury sedans went. If your memory of the Granada/Monarch is dim or nonexistent, you might even wonder why everyone is always so mean about the Versailles.
This got me thinking about the genre of pseudo-luxury or semi-luxury cars that the Versailles represents (the Cadillac Cimarron being the other notorious example) and what makes them succeed or fail. The Cimarron is the butt of even more jokes than the Versailles, but there are other examples that have been much more successful, like the Lexus ES. The ES has always been a dolled-up Toyota Camry, but it’s often done quite well, with global sales sometimes topping 100,000 units a year.
The original ES, the 1990–1991 ES250, was essentially a placeholder. Toyota went all out for their “F1” project, the first Lexus LS400, which was a truly all-new and very impressive car. The “F2” project, as the ES was initially known internally, was something of an afterthought. Unlike the Versailles, which had been inspired by a particular rival (the 1976 Cadillac Seville), the main object for the F2 was to give Lexus dealers something less expensive to sell alongside the LS400, which started at around $35,000 when it debuted in fall 1989.
Toyota had a couple of platform options, including the RWD Soarer coupe and the latest RWD Cressida/Mark II/Chaser/Cresta, but they opted for the Camry, I think because it would be easier to keep the price where they wanted it. However, therein lay a problem: Toyota was preparing to introduce a wide-body export Camry platform, whose larger dimensions, no longer bound by Japanese restrictions on length and width, would be better-suited to the near-luxury mission, and which they could more convincingly differentiate from the regular Camry. However, that bigger Camry platform wouldn’t be ready until mid-1991, two years after the debut of Lexus. To fill the gap, Toyota opted to redress a version of the existing narrow-body V20 Camry.
The V20 Camry, introduced in North America for 1987, had been tailored specifically for U.S. tastes — it was styled by Toyota’s Calty design center in California. However, it was also sold in the Japanese domestic market, where it acquired a couple of JDM-specific spinoffs, including a “twin” called Toyota Vista (the flagship of Toyota’s Vista sales channel) and a four-door pillared hardtop body style.
The hardtop was initially offered only in the Vista line, but starting in August 1988, it was also added to the Camry Prominent line. It was 1 inch lower and 1 inch longer than the four-door Camry/Vista sedan and had a different roofline with no rear quarter windows.
I already know some commenters are going to squawk about the pillared hardtop thing, so I’m going to head that off right now:
- That’s what these models were called, it’s not up to me;
- A pillared hardtop had a fairly consistent, generally understood set of design features (concealed B-pillars, frameless door glass, and a lower roof with a four-window side profile) — it wasn’t a matter of arbitrarily declaring certain four-door sedans to be hardtops;
- Some Japanese automakers (including Toyota) still offered some four-door pillarless hardtops in the same size/price classes, so it was useful to distinguish the one from the other.
The Camry Prominent was a fancier version of the JDM Camry with a V-6 engine and some additional features, like four-wheel disc brakes and automatic climate control. In top-line Prominent G form, it was fairly plush, and it could be ordered with features like digital instruments and TEMS electronically controlled shock absorbers.
Its V-6, the 1,992 cc 1VZ-FE, was a very fancy new 24-valve DOHC engine with variable intake runners and electronic fuel injection. It wasn’t any more powerful than a decent 2-liter DOHC four, and it was gutless at low speeds, but it was slick and sweet.
Toyota bored this out to 2,507 cc to create the 2VZ-FE engine in the U.S. Camry V-6, introduced in mid-1988.
Since the Camry Prominent hardtop had different sheet metal than the Camry sedan and was a little more upscale, Toyota decided to adapt it for Lexus duty, adding the already-federalized 2.5-liter V-6 from the U.S. Camry, a different grille, new bumper covers, and new taillights. This became the 1990 Lexus ES250, which made its U.S. debut in September 1989.
When the Versailles had bowed back in March 1977, it was immediately obvious to anyone with eyes that it was a Mercury Monarch with a new grille, fancy paint, and a Continental-style decklid hump. Likewise, everyone who paid attention to the ES250 when it debuted immediately recognized that it was a V-6 Camry with a new roof and a few nips and tucks.
(I can only assume critics would have been even less impressed if they had realized that the roof and skin were borrowed from an extant JDM model; U.S. reviewers seemed to assume these changes had been contrived specifically for Lexus.)
A V20 Camry V-6 sedan was a perfectly decent car, but it wasn’t at all exciting, and next to the knockout LS400, the similar ES250 seemed like a bowl of oatmeal served alongside a fine Kobe steak.
Since the ES250 was unmistakably a Camry derivative, the immediate question became how its price compared with the Camry and whether it was worth the extra money. One of the reasons the Versailles was hard to take seriously was that it cost almost twice as much as a similarly equipped Monarch. In 1990, a Lexus ES250 with automatic started at $21,800, about $2,800 more than a similarly equipped Camry LE V-6 — a premium of roughly 15 percent.
You weren’t paying ONLY for the Lexus badge and different exterior sheet metal: Just as the Versailles was quieter and smoother than a Monarch, the ES250 was quieter than a V-6 Camry, with a somewhat better ride. Unlike the soggy Lincoln, its handling was also bit more composed than its plebeian sibling, thanks to more aggressive tires, different spring and damping rates, and gas-charged struts. (The Lexus version never got TEMS adjustable shocks.)
You got some real wood trim on the doors and center stack, plus a standard driver’s-side airbag, which spared you the Camry’s highly obnoxious motorized shoulder belts. Antilock brakes, a pricey option on the Camry, were standard.
Also, choosing the ES250 over the Camry LE V-6 got you a longer warranty and the promise of cosseting Lexus customer service. (Anyone who’s dealt with the typical U.S. Toyota dealer can grasp the value of that.) The ES250 wasn’t exactly the bargain of the decade, especially since the Camry LE was already rather expensive — most Camry buyers opted for the DX four-cylinder — but it wasn’t the worst value among six-cylinder near-luxury cars.
Nonetheless, the ES250 wasn’t quite a match for its key FWD rivals, which included the similarly priced Acura Legend and the somewhat cheaper Nissan Maxima SE. Its additional content made the ES250 heavier than a Camry, which made the 2.5-liter engine’s weak low-end torque that much more apparent, especially with automatic. (A 5-speed manual was standard, but it went into only 1,995 cars in two years.) Also, the ES250’s re-tuned suspension was still biased more towards ride than handling.
Buff book editors inevitably wished it were more athletic, but if you wanted a quiet, comfy cruiser with a premium badge, the ES250 was quite nice, and it would have been a rewarding alternative for domestic luxury buyers (including Versailles veterans) looking to trade up. (The available color-keyed maroon and blue interiors would certainly have made them feel right at home, although Lexus didn’t offer a bench seat option.)
Car and Driver editor Csaba Csere, who found “much to admire about the little Lexus,” suggested, “[I]f you’re one of those buyers who liked the idea of the defunct Cadillac Cimarron but were disappointed with its execution, take a good look at the ES250.”
Given its various handicaps and the small size of the early Lexus dealer network, the ES250 wasn’t a terrible seller. It never sold as well as the pricier LS400, but Toyota hadn’t expected it to (something Toyota Motor Sales EVP Yale Gieszl later admitted was a miscalculation). Total ES production in its initial two-year run totaled 37,476 cars, including a few hundred sold in Canada for 1991. (That total doesn’t include JDM production of the Camry Prominent or Vista hardtop.) Total Versailles production had reached 50,156, although it lasted three and a half years rather than just two.
Like the Versailles, I’m pretty sure the ES250 was a moneymaker: The additional development costs of the Lexus version had to have been low, and the per-car margins were likely robust. It did well enough to demonstrate that there was a viable market for a version with more room and more power, which arrived in September 1991 in the form of the Lexus ES300.
Just as Lincoln-Mercury had seemed somewhat embarrassed by the Versailles despite its profit margins, Toyota seemed to have been a bit chagrined by the original ES. “Nobody in the company was especially happy with the ES250,” recalled product planner Tadashi Arashima, “but we took what we could get until the ES300 arrived.” The new model quickly cleared the clouds away: Based on the wide-body XV10 Camry platform, but designed specifically as a Lexus, the ES300 sold much better than the ES250, soon outpacing the LS400 to become the bestselling Lexus model. I always thought it still looked like a Camry despite its different sheet metal and pillared hardtop roofline, but it was evidently different enough for many buyers. (The ES300 was also sold in Japan as the Toyota Windom.) The unloved ES250 was quickly forgotten — even dedicated marque histories like Chester Dawson’s Lexus: The Relentless Pursuit pay it scant attention.
Thinking about all this, I pondered some of the parameters that determine whether a new model based on another existing product is likely to be a credible success or not. Here are a few of the most important ones:
- Is the existing model well-regarded? (A minor variation of a popular product might be welcomed with open arms; a new spin on an embarrassing flop is likely to have a harder road, even if it’s a definite improvement.)
- Is the existing model any good? (If not, the phrase “lipstick on a pig” may apply.) Does the new model inherit the flaws of the existing product, or does it attempt to mitigate those shortcomings?
- Does the new model look recognizably different from the existing product? (It may not have to look completely different so long as it’s an appealing variation — the Mercury Sable of the ’80s and ’90s is a good example here.)
- Is the new model meaningfully more expensive than the existing one? If so, does the new one offer anything of substance for the extra money besides a different name or more prestigious badge? (With the Lexus ES, I would consider the better warranty something of substance, at least for new car buyers; the badge cachet of driving a Lexus, not so much.)
- Does the new model’s price or positioning put it in a market segment where the basic platform is obviously outclassed or outgunned?
Many of these points are arguable, and history demonstrates that a model may fall down in some of these areas and still succeed because of its other virtues. However, any one of these factors can be enough to make a basically good product fail or cause an especially cynical one to become an outright laughingstock.
You can decide for yourself how you think the Lincoln Versailles scored, but the sheer longevity of the Lexus ES line makes clear that it eventually succeeded on points, even if the ES250 was a bit of a damp squib.
Perhaps perversely, I have a soft spot for the original ES250. The XV10 ES300 was a better car in many respects, but I like the ES250’s late ’80s JDM hardtop look and smaller dimensions. If it had come to putting my money down, I would probably have opted for an Acura Legend coupe instead, but an ES250 wouldn’t make a bad daily driver even today.
Related Reading
1977–1980 Lincoln Versailles: Slow-Selling, Cynical, But Very Profitable (by me)
Curbside Classic: 1989-91 Lexus ES250 – Lexus’ Learning Curve (by William Stopford)
Cars Of A Lifetime: 1991 Lexus ES250 – Luxury For The Proletariat (by Junkharvester)
Curbside Classic: 1994 Lexus ES 300 – A Drinkable Prosecco Among Pricier Champagnes (by Brendan Saur)
Cursed Curbsides: The Lexus ES – Lexus’ Greatest Hit Or Greatest Regret? (by William Stopford)
Thanks for this recap. I remember the big splash when the flagship Lexus and Infiniti debuted, and I remember both lines being filled out a bit under them, but paid no significant attention to them. My impression was that Lexus did a far better job with the lesser models than Infiniti did, but that was where I stopped paying attention.
I can now see the charms of both versions of the smaller Lexus, and could see where the added warranty and the luxurious dealer experience would draw customers. I think Toyota did as well as they reasonably could in creating a family-wide look among the various Lexus vehicles right from the beginning.
The initial Infiniti base model was the M30 coupe, which had the plus of being unrelated to any existing U.S. model and the minus of being a bit older and more obviously dated. The G20 (Nissan Primera) that followed it was a fine car, although maybe not a luxury car, just as the Acura Integra wasn’t really a luxury car.
I think the issue Infiniti ended up having, more than Lexus, was that Nissan already had a pretty credible near-luxury entry in the Maxima, which sort of crowded the G20 more than the far more conservative Toyota Cressida crowded the Lexus ES. Eventually, Nissan decided to just create an Infiniti version of the Maxima (the I30), but they apparently hadn’t wanted to do that upfront, maybe to avoid trampling on Nissan dealers.
I’ve always felt sorry for Infiniti dealers; it seems their products either miss the mark (the original Q45) or just serve as meh (current products). I will say the original FX30 and J30 were stunning designs in my mind. Lexas aimed for MB and Infiniti aimed for BMW…only Lexus hit their target.
In 1991, the G20 was the car that I wanted to buy, and if not for the seat belt mice (which I detested) rather than driver’s airbag, it probably would have become my first new car as I began my career. I test drove it with 16v allow Four, 5-speed manual and tan leather, and proclaimed it a lovely and reliable Alfa Romeo. The Maxima wasn’t even in my thoughts, being a completely different type of car. By the time the G20 got airbags in 1995 it was too late. I sat in one at the dealer and realized that I needed a medium-sized car for comfortable shoulder room, so bought a used ’92 Audi 100 that ended up being the best car I ever owned. But having learned how to drive in a Datsun 810, I was predisposed to trusting and wanting Infiniti. Their decision to initially go cheap cost them my patronage.
Great post! I was one of those cynics back in 1990, but I had been bruised by the Versailles and the Cimarron., although I thought the Cimarron was far more egregious. Maybe you could have included a picture of the later Versailles with the re-designed rear roof.
A good friend bought one of the early ES250s and loved it, trading in his very problematic Cadillac Seville. He felt the +/-15% upcharge over a loaded Camry V6 was well worth it. He kept that thing going for 10 years and nearly 300k miles.
The Versailles post (linked toward the beginning) has pictures of the Versailles from all four model years, including the 1979–1980 model with the longer roof and the weird vinyl-covered spare tire hump.
Also build quality – There was nothing wrong with Toyota in that era but I expect the ES was put together like the LS with near perfect build quality. And, I expect the Lexus salesman was not shy about pointing that out.
Also, the LS was such a stunner and an excellent value I expect that many buyers who would have been able to easily afford an ES went ahead and stepped up to the LS because it was wonderful.
PS Two of my wife’s sisters families bought Legends. Those cars were superb. Why Acura ever dropped the Legend name is a mystery.
The other, even more lightly badge-engineered early Lexus was the LX 450 version of the Toyota Land Cruiser FZJ80, introduced a few years after the ES. In fact the LX series remained very close to its Toyota equivalent for many generations. I talked with a guy who knew the details but bought the Lexus anyway; he told me that the dealer experience was worth the extra few thousand dollars.
During the years that they sold the original large Land-Cruiser wagon and the Lexus LX version of it, I was always told that the demographics for the Land-Cruiser revealed that it actually sold to people who made more money than those who purchased the Lexus version. I’ve been told that there was a similar situation where the GMC Yukon Denali buyers had higher incomes than those who bought the similar Cadillac Escalade.
To begin, I want to say that I have always liked these “underdog” cars. Yes, the Versailles, the Cimarron (I’ve owned both in the past and liked them a lot). I also like cars like this ES250 (more the original than later versions) and even that little Infiniti model. Even though I love big and boldly American styled luxury cars, the smaller versions just seemed to have a place in my heart no matter the brand.
So, your article brings up a very valid point about this ES250 being the Toyota version of the Versailles (or better yet, the Cimarron). In fact, the Japanese brands were every bit as guilty at putting lipstick on a pig as the American brands. So over the years, why has there been so much hate towards cars like the Cimarron and Versailles and so little towards the ES250 and others? I mean come on. The vast majority of public could look at the early M30 or G20 Infiniti’s and honestly think it were a Nissan Sentra or such. And yes, as pointed out in this story, the ES250 and later models can easily be mistaken for the Camry or even a Corolla. So what gives? Why has there been a double standard here?
So thank you for this article and bringing this to light. I still like them and would enjoy owning one just like I enjoyed my Cimarron for many years.
“So over the years, why has there been so much hate towards cars like the Cimarron and Versailles and so little towards the ES250 and others?”
Because the Cimarron was an 80s Cavalier and the ES was an V20 Camry. Three reasons why I see this as important:
1. The Camry is a size class up on the Cavalier. They didn’t use the Corolla to make the ES.
2. The underlying platform matters, and Japanese cars were taking market share from the domestics for a reason.
3. Cars from the early 80s sucked compared to those from the late 80s. It was a time of rapid improvement and the Cimarron was from the wrong end of the decade. That’s definitely going to affect the way it is remembered.
The ES250 was a transparent play, but it was an excellent underlying car and it only lasted for two years until the XV10 ES300 arrived…and that was a fully executed premium sedan. Lexus moved very quickly to make the ES a very competitive, very good car. In comparison, the Cimarron ran an absolutely antique-looking 1981 J Body clear into the 1988 model year when things like Integra and Legend and e30 BMW were on the scene. If GM had moved the Cimarron onto a lipsticked Celebrity Eurosport in 1984, I’m guessing it would be remembered much more fondly.
Finally, Lexus and Infiniti were upstarts without a brand history beyond the positive quality reputation of their Toyota and Nissan parent companies. Cadillac had a long history of premium barely-obtainable battle cruisers…visually striking American luxury road ships. The Cimarron didn’t match any of that heritage.
“In fact, the Japanese brands were every bit as guilty at putting lipstick on a pig as the American brands”
The Camry though was never a pig. And neither of the Infiniti models were ever sold here as Nissans.
In fact the Camry was the industry benchmark that the domestics (as well as most other competitors) aspired to before the last of the domestics finally gave up on offering a midsize sedan last year. People CHOOSE to buy a Camry to the exclusion of all other cars.
The Cavalier? Yeah…GM went on to change the name twice since there was zero brand equity and then canceled the line. Oink. Granada too didn’t last beyond one generation in the U.S.. Oink, oink. Nobody ever set out to buy a Cavalier.
Camry may well be the last mid-size standing and frankly probably represents the best return on investment if spending $30k on a new car today.
The Camry platform may have been the base for the ES, however the Vista that was actually used shared zero sheetmetal or anything else on the exterior with the Camry. VERY few people in the U.S. even knew that the Vista existed. For all intents and purposes the ES was a completely new vehicle for this market which seems to me to be the best way to do this. The Cimarron and Versailles were all too obvious in their costumes and then didn’t just cost 15% more than their common brethren, no, they went for the full fleecing. There was no reason GM and Ford couldn’t have used similar-sized European models that were generally much higher regarded than the domestic pigs you referred to if they wanted something less obvious. But that would have required an investment, so…no. I guess they made money back then but at what reputational cost and future loss of sales? The Cimarron is still a punchline, the Versailles is better in that regard, mainly because it for the most part slipped from public consciousness some years ago.
Today the ES line still represents a large part of Lexus sales and has actually gained market share the last couple of years to almost 50,000 per year as of recently. Lincoln (and Ford) gave up on trying to compete with sedans years ago and Cadillac’s two will likely not be replaced after this generation, their sales numbers are embarrassing.
Those two Cadillacs are GM’s only remaining sedan or hatchback business in the US; with the Malibu discontinued the only passenger car Chevy stills sell here is the Corvette, and Buick is now all-SUV. Stellantis’ American brands are down to the new Dodge Charger hatchback, though it will eventually be available with two or four doors, and electric or I-6 combustion power (and I’m guessing, a Hemi V8 too due to management and policy change).
Meanwhile, the Japanese, Korean, and German brands are doing fine selling regular cars. A few sedans are being culled from their lineups, but that’s primarily to make room for all-electric models.
The difference was that the Versailles and Cimarron cost nearly twice as much as the Monarch and Cavalier. The Lexus cost just 15% more than the Camry, and what you got for that 15% looks to have been worth it.
Remember so many “250’s”, being that white/gray color. Who knew, at the time, as the years went by the majority a cars on the road would be white.
I even have one now; do not like white cars in general. (or white sofa’s, white rugs, white bath towels, white kitchen cabinets..lol
In short, the color of everything, every where.
Mother’s final car purchase was an ES300. As you suggested, she wanted a Camry, but the Toyota dealer treated her poorly and wanted MSRP plush a bunch of dealer add-ons. She went to the Lexus dealer, where she was treated much better, and the out-the-door price was insignificantly higher than the Toyota.
Honestly, I think one of the biggest shortcomings of the V20 Camry in this era was the dealers. They had a hot product and they knew it, so they were reluctant to discount (even if they weren’t tacking on ADP and AMV surcharges) and they made customers feel like a hunk of meat tossed into the bear enclosure at the zoo. (Even a number of years later, my own experience with Toyota dealers involved salespeople just blithely lying to my face and their managers lying to me in writing about easily verifiable facts.) I’m sure there must have been exceptions somewhere, but it didn’t make a good impression.
The prospect of being treated with respect, both in the initial sale and in service contacts, had a definite value.
Not sure that model got Lexus badging here, Ive never seen one anyway or didnt notice, The next model released in 91 was only released in New Zealand, my sister bought one they raved about how quiet and fast it was full leather lots of toys, Toyota redesigned the engine and final drive before world release and decontented them into the Camry that took over the world and the gold badge Lexus Windom variants, Toyota really thought about its range back then tailoring cars to markets the various versions of Camry are almost ridiculous, but it worked there was one for everyone.
Nice writeup Aaron. The success of the ES vs other badge engineering efforts is interesting. Looking at the Cars and Bids listing pictures of that red ES250 with the tan leather interior now, I actually don’t find it remotely surprising that the ES did succeed. Even as a 2-model-year-only stopgap, that’s a nice car for 1990, nicer than its reputation as a thinly reworked Camry would suggest. It slots in very well with the Legends and Maximas and Audi 90s of the time. Well enough to leave a favorable impression before the more competitive ES300 hit, anyway.
Actually Toyota in Australia would have been quite happy to continue selling the final series Cressida which was extremely popular with retirees and older Australians, kinda the Australian Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac Calais. We never got that first generation ES250, but Australia did get the second generation. I thought it looked very much like the Camry.
You may also have seen a few ex-JDM V30 Camry Prominent hardtops, which looked kind of like the XV10 ES300, but on the smaller narrow-body Camry platform, like a Windom that shrank a bit in the wash.
several variables determine the success of cars of this sort that are obviously based on a manufacturer’s cheaper models:
1. It helps if the root vehicle is well regarded and not perceived as a low-buck economy car. This helped the ES because the Camry V6 was well regarded as a reliable car. The first-generation Escalade was a hit despite being based on a Chevy pickup truck/SUV, but Chevy makes good full-size trucks. The Granada/Monarch and Cavalier were not seen as adequate bases on which to build high-priced luxury sedans.
– M body Chrysler 5th Ave., obviously a tarted-up Volare which was (or previously was) sold from the same showroom. But lack of concurrent competition and Chysler’s generally good rep for their classic rwd stuff help the 5th and the Diplomat.
2. It helps if the root car wasn’t sold in North America, giving Americans nothing to compare the rebranded car to. Examples include the
– Cadillac Catera (Opel)
– Saab 9000 (Fiat Chroma/Lancia Theta)
– Several late-period Saabs and Saturns based on non-US market Opels
– Pontiac GTO, G8, and Chevy SS based on Holdens
– Jaguar X-Type (2nd-gen Ford Mondeo, which US didn’t get as a Contour or Fusion)
– Americans never saw the JDM Camry/Vista variants that the Lexus ES was based on.
2. and worst of all is the circling-the-drain reflex triggered by cars that are obviously based on other company’s cars (’55-57 Hudsons that are essentially Nashes, ’57-58 Packards that are really Studebakers, and Saab 9-2x’s that are really Subarus).
The ES 250 was really a nice car and didn’t feel much like a plush Camry. A widowed coworker owned one of these (replaced a Maxima) and loved the interior finishes, the power assists, and the overall smooth demeanor, down to, and including, the very solicitous dealer service for which Lexus became famous. I rode in that car many times and was impressed with the fit and finish and almost silky ride quality. One particular aspect of the dealership experience stood out: she believed the service advisors took her seriously as a woman and did not condescend or patronize her in any way.
Unfortunately, that car suffered an early death after about two years, being totalled after a vicious hailstorm while parked at the long-term lot at DFW airport. The replacement was obvious: an ES 300 was delivered to her home and exchanged for a courtesy loaner car about a week after the hailstorm. I have long since lost touch with my coworker, but I would find it hard to believe that she is driving anything but a Lexus these days.
Nice post. My two cents;
“Was the Lexus ES250 just a Japanese Versailles?” In my view, to an extent yes, and to an extent no…
As I’m sure you know, Toyota was experimenting with Lexus-level quality in several of its products just prior to introduction of the new brand – the Soarer being the most notable. But the Camry Prominent G was one also – one of the wife’s relatives had one and I could tell it was a real step up. So I agree with you that Toyota just put more effort into “dressing up” its base model than Ford.
“Was the Versailles unfairly maligned?” No, and that’s from a Lincoln fan.
There is one difference between the small Lexus and small Lincoln that make direct comparisons difficult. The ES250 was the lower priced of the two Lexus offerings, was smaller and benefitted from the standard that the flagship LS400 set.
The Versailles by contrast, was more expensive than the Continental in 1977, yet was a smaller car. And if you ignore Lincoln’s loose use of names through the Eighties and beyond, the Gen II Versailles was the ’82 Conti, Gen III the ’88 Conti, Gen IV the ’95 Conti, and Gen V the 2000 LS, which overlapped the Gen IV Conti for a couple years. Lincoln didn’t start pricing its biggest car higher than it smallest car until the end of the Nineties. So unlike the ES, the Versailles in all its naming permutations was tasked with getting higher pricing than the larger Lincoln that had always identified the Lincoln brand. I’d say the Versailles did pretty well, by that standard. That’s not to say the product was as good as it needed to be. It too often wasn’t.
All of this speaks somewhat to Aaron’s 5th parameter.
The ES 250, while obviously based on the Camry, at least had different sheet metal to distinguish it from the Camry. As such it ranks a step higher than the psuedo-luxury cars that shared the same sheet metal as lesser lower-priced models which never quite cut it.
The list of the cars that never quite cut it as luxury cars because of their too-obvious relationship to cheaper models include the Acura EL and CSX; the Cadillac Cimarron; the Infiniti I30 and I35; the Lincoln Versailles AND the 2006 Lincoln Zephyr and 2007-12 MKZ; the 1957-58 Packard; and the Rover 200.
I was always surprised that the 2006 Lincoln Zephyr and subsequent MKZ were as well received as they were.