(first posted 1/18/2017) Lexus. An automotive brand that instantly conjures images of classical music, golf courses, and a tower of champagne coupes resting on its hood. Lexus. An automotive brand that instantly ignites heated debates over everything from its spindle grille to whether or not it’s even a “true” luxury brand. On the one hand you have proponents who rave about Lexus’ high-quality fit-and-finish, plethora of features, low cost of ownership, and the ever important premium dealership experience. Yet on the other hand, you have the opponents who write-off Lexus as little more as a fancy Toyota with little more than a premium price tag to vouch for its luxury ambitions.
Furthermore, Lexus itself struggles with an identity crisis, whether or not it actually likes to acknowledge it. With more driver-focused models such as the IS/GS/RC and its F Sport sub-brand, Lexus likes to think that it’s a true BMW/Mercedes/Audi/Cadillac competitor. Unfortunately, Lexus’s top sellers are its less sophisticated and front-wheel drive ES sedan and RX crossover, making it more of a Buick/Lincoln/Acura competitor, which is a level Lexus would like consumers to think it is above. It’s a dilemma that has plagued Lexus for most of its existence, and no model best represents the start of this dichotomy than the ES 300.
While the original ES 250 (above) was introduced as a somewhat halfhearted, stopgap companion to the LS 400, the second generation ES was a far more targeted effort at the entry-level luxury market. Reflective of the sole engine’s increase in displacement from 2.5 to 3.0 liters, the car was now called the ES 300, but engine size wasn’t all that increased. Riding on a 0.7-inch longer wheelbase, the car was nearly 5 inches longer and three inches wider, classifying it as a midsize sedan by EPA standards.
More notably, the second generation ES boasted far more seductive styling, which I’m willing to bet was largely responsible for the car’s 76.4% increase in sales for 1992 over 1991. Ditching the ES 250’s very mid-1980s-rooted sharp-edged, angular styling, the new ES 300 boasted a sleek, elegant silhouette with a far more athletic stance than before.
Still strictly a pillared hardtop design, the ES 300 featured an aerodynamic, wedge-shaped front fascia. A slim, body-colored grille was flanked by backswept twin-projector headlamps. A long, low-slung hood, slim A- and C-pillars, aggressive shoulders, and integrated rear spoiler gave the car the visual flair it needed to stand out just the right amount. The ES 300 was a design that was striking and sophisticated, yet at the same time delicate and understated enough to have mass appeal.
Inside, the ES 300 greeted occupants with a very understated and logically laid-out interior, that if anything, was a bit sleep-inducing, especially in the typical early-1990s Toyota beige-and-taupe combination. Design was simple and straightforward, a combination of contemporary Toyota and Lexus interior design elements, with flowing, organic shapes, soft-touch surfaces, and easily legible and operable controls.
The Lexus’ badge of luxury was marked by California burled walnut trimming the center console, though truthfully, there was little else about the ES 300’s interior that screamed luxury. The optional but commonly equipped leather trim package included stitched leather seating surfaces, center armrest, and steering wheel.
Unlike the larger LS 400 and other entry-level luxury sedans such as the Acura Vigor and Mercedes C-Class, door panels lacked stitched leather, wood trim, and chrome door handles, making for a less luxurious feel. In any event, standard features included digital automatic climate control, 6-way power front seats, power windows, and 8-speaker sound system.
Rightfully so, the ES 300 was a sportier, higher-end looking design than its Camry counterpart. Following common Japanese practice of offering traditional sedan and 4-door hardtop bodystyles sharing little to no sheetmetal, the ES 300 used the same hardtop body shell as the Japanese-spec Toyota Windom, though underneath the skin, the “wide-body” XV10 Camry sedan and Windom/ES 300 hardtops were virtually identical.
Riding on the same chassis, the ES 300 was powered by the same two 3.0L V6s over its run, the 185 horsepower/189 lb-ft torque 3ZE-FE from 1992-1993 and the slightly more robust 188 horsepower/203 lb-ft torque 3MZ-FE that replaced it for 1994-1996. The same 4-speed automatic and 5-speed manual transmissions were shared, though the manual was dropped in the ES after 1993, presumably due to low take rate.
(It appears this promotional photo was taken right about here, give or take a few blocks, on Commonwealth Avenue in my home city of Boston)
Strictly appearance-wise, it’s honestly hard to believe that the ES 300 was the platform mate of the far more bulbous and less athletic looking XV10 Camry. Of course, being heavily related to the Camry was part of the ES’s appeal. Offering Camry quality, reliability, and user friendliness with more snob and sex appeal — it was the perfect formula for success.
And my oh my was the ES 300 a success. Over the course of this 1992-1996 generation, Lexus moved some 200,954 ES 300s out the doors of its imposing concrete-facaded dealers. During those years, approximately two out of every five Lexus’ sold was an ES 300, and in 1996 alone, over 50% of the Lexus’ sales came from the ES 300.
While the LS certainly put Lexus on the map, by the time this second generation ES rolled around, the LS’s novelty was beginning to wear off and sales were decreasing, aided by the fact that the car’s base price was steadily rising and newer competitors were being introduced. In light of this, the ES’s popularity was soaring and it was the ES 300 that kept the cash flowing in, opening up the wallets of many first-time Lexus owners and even first-time luxury car owners, in addition to returning customers.
You see, unlike so many other “entry-level” luxury cars, whose primary purpose is to lure buyers into the showroom by its low starting price, then hopefully up sell them to something larger and more expensive, the ES 300 had a powerful appeal for just what it was, and buyers were content. Despite it offering greater luxury and performance, few people took notice of the GS 300, as evidenced by its pitiful sales figures in comparison. For those seeking little more than leather seats and the Lexus badge, the ES was a far more affordable gateway.
In truth, the ES 300 was much like Prosecco. It’s mild, easy to handle, and perfectly competent if you want to feel a little fancy. It’s in a completely different league than Miller High Life, but it’s still not real Champagne, and can never quite be truly enjoyed to the same extent. Just like Prosecco is sweet and light, the ES is soft and thus easier to live with for many luxury car shoppers looking to save a few bucks. However, just as an $11 bottle of Ruffino Prosecco is no real substitute for Dom Perignon, or even Moët & Chandon Imperial brut, when it comes to a greater overall sense of solidity and that precise luxury car feel, the ES was then, and especially now (considering its platform dates back to 2000 and its V6 engine to 2004), no match for newer non-rebadged, tighter-handling rear-wheel drive competitors from makes such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Cadillac. Yet some Proseccos are better than others, and the 1992-1996 Lexus ES 300 was one of the better ones.
Photographed: Accord Pond, Norwell, MA – December 2016
Related Reading:
Mother had one as her final car. While it was often dismissed as a “fancy Camry”, what I believe sold these cars was the sales/showroom experience. The target market doesn’t mind paying more to get the better experience than the cattle at the Toyota store get.
source: I took my 26-year-old Acura to a dealer once, and was treated like royalty.
The longer warranty probably didn’t hurt either.
And I think you’ve hit upon one of the problems with Lincoln’s attempt to regain respectability in the luxury car brand–the dealer experience, or lack thereof. It was bad enough that for much of recent history Lincoln dealers were also burdened with Mercury franchises, as the prospective Continental or Mark buyer was also faced with Tracers and Mountaineers. But at least in that equation, maybe the Lincoln buying/servicing experience rubbed off on the Mercury side. Nowadays, with Mercury no more and most standalone Lincoln dealers gone, Lincolns are often (usually?) sold out of Ford dealerships. And that is NOT what a luxury buyer wants to deal with.
One minor clarification: It would be more accurate to say the ES300 was also sold in Japan as the Toyota Windom rather than the other way around. The VCV10, while obviously based on the U.S. Camry, was conceived as a Lexus first — the styling was done by Calty in California for the U.S. market. Offering it as the Windom in the home market was sort of an afterthought, since there was already a hardtop version of the narrow-body SV30 Camry and Vista, introduced for 1991.
Surprisingly, the Windom was sold side-by-side with the Camry in Japan. Both were distributed through Corolla stores.
I don’t know how many Windoms Toyota actually sold in Japan, but the sales projection for the VCV10 was 36,000 a year. The projections for the 1996 MCV20 were the same, which makes me think the original estimates were probably about right.
Vast numbers of ex JDM Windoms are in NZ both in junk yards and on the road, nice enough cars but they suffer from the JDM suspension tuning on our roads.
Undoubtably the car was conceived primarily as the Lexus. Sorry if the way I worded that paragraph led you to believe I was stating otherwise.
Nearly right Brendan the original widebody Camry this is based on was always going to be a Lexus, My sister had one of the development models only ever sold in New Zealand all the quietness and comfort performance and luxury was baked into the originals and removed for the world market Camry,
I mean who would want a Camry that could top 240kmh?
I’ve got one and I see quite a few of them around where I live both ES300s and Windoms.
I may be totally wrong but I have a feeling this was sold in Europe as Camry – they sold so few Camrys here (well, Toyota’s/Lexus’ performance in Austria has been appalling during the last 15 years full stop); you hardly ever encounter one on the street, so it’s hard to tell.
I don’t know about Continental markets, but in the U.K., there was the V-6 Camry version, but not the Lexus edition, at least not as an official import. However, some RHD Windoms ended up in the U.K., where some of them got Lexus badges. As I recall, that resulted in a messy court battle centering on the question of whether selling a rebadged JDM car as a Lexus constituted fraud (!).
Even the Camry V-6 was frightfully expensive in the U.K. and the depreciation was the stuff of nightmares. Very different than in the States!
Below the 1991-1996 Toyota Camry as available in Europe. Either with a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder or with a 3.0 liter V6. There was also a wagon, built in the US, IIRC.
In the early nineties we only had the Lexus GS300 (inline-6) and LS400 (V8).
And as AUWM already mentions, midsize and big Japanes cars -regardless the brand- had a Depreciation From Hell.
OK, that’s the car I saw. They are so anodyne it’s really hard to tell. There are five (yes) for sale in the Austrian equivalent of Craigslist which covers the country, not just Vienna. I suppose if you wanted a comfortable biggish sedan for little money it makes sense. No spares if you damage the body, but the drive-train will so 300,000 miles…
…”A comfortable biggish sedan for little money”…absolutely. € 3,700 for a 15 year old Camry 3.0 V6. With an automatic transmission, of course. This was the last Camry generation -and also the last Toyota “executive car”- in Europe, 2004 or so was its final year.
I quite liked the more square lined Camry generation (second half of the nineties) in your picture.
Yep, they go for similar money (or even less) here too.
Sold in Japan as the Toyota Windom.
As it states more than once in the article 🙂
Brendan Saur
I think the second paragraph sums up the entire Lexus line today perfectly. I could not have said it better!
As the baby boomers got older, it is understandable that they took to a car that offered a higher level of smoothness and quiet. This was an area that the ES300 did better than any other import. It was smart of Toyota to build a proper Buick. After all, Lexus could actually charge a one third premium before discounts. and the discounts were on the cheaper car. So for all of you who want to chime in that it was a better Buick. I should hope so.
Who knew that convincing one generation of Americans was way less important than fellow Asians across the sea of Japan. Perhaps a dolled up Tempo Camry should have taken on the Century in China.
Excellent article as usual, Brendan!
“Of course, being heavily related to the Camry was part of the ES’s appeal. Offering Camry quality, reliability, and user friendliness with more snob and sex appeal ”
This describes me, just 20 years to early.
Interesting post Brendan.
I agree with Wolfgang, the appeal of the the sexy leather and wood V6 ES is based on its tried and true Camry underpinnings.
That is the opposite of what many marketing and advertising people have tried to do, i.e., claim that a less expensive “thing” has the underpinnings of a more expensive “thing”.
But, this being cars, the logic gets a little convoluted.
1. The ES is a stretched and nicer Camry and has a V6.
2. The very popular RX is a raised and AWD ES (both with V6).
3. The Avalon is a stretched and nicer Camry (with a V6), kind of like the ES, but not actually an ES. It’s “different”; it’s a Toyota.
4. The Camry V6 is really a less expensive ES (and quite fast to boot).
So what all this means is . . . wait, I’m confused.
What all this means is…….. It’s a good thing that the automotive press has Lincoln to be their whipping boy, or they might take notice of all of this.
Exactly. How a bout a glorified Fusion? – Used of course.
Lexus has never been able to capture the public’s attention again like it did the second time out the gate (ES).
Lets be honest the Lexus ES-250, was a Toyota Camry with a Lexus badge. It reminds me of when Cadillac tried to tell us a Cavalier was a Cadillac (Cimmaron).
The second Generation ES-300, along with the refreshed version in 1997 were great elegant looking cars that had presence. People traded in their Volvo’s very quickly for the entry level Lexus ES back in 1992. They looked semi expensive, was loved by the upper middle class income brachet etc. It was a car you inspired to have one day.
The 3rd generation ES-300 and beyond, created as much buzz as a card board box. They were forgettable, boring, and no longer had the presence as the 2nd generation. Today in 2017 the only people I see purchasing or desiring the Lexus ES model are senior citizens and elderly church goers.
A missed opportunity to keep the young demographic in Lexus stable. I hated that the 1992 Lexus rear seat compartment seems super boring and could be the interior of any bland cheap car.
Very much agreed. The only possible car to somewhat recapture that younger demographic was the second generation IS (2005-2013). The first generation IS (aka Altezza) was too boy-racer and not luxurious enough to have great appeal.
Lexus corrected that with the second generation, which was far more elegant and luxurious while still offering a bit of sportiness. Unfortunately, Lexus left that car way too long in production, and I feel like those who it appealed to in its early years moved on and forgot about it.
The third generation IS is arguably the best yet, offering the best performance ever in a small Lexus while still being luxurious, yet I don’t see too many of these, despite the car now in its 4th model year, and living in the area of several large Lexus dealers.
Conversely, I see tons of newer ESs and RXs around, mostly driven by middle-aged to older drivers. I should also add that Lexus has also missed the mark by not offering a proper 3-row crossover. Strictly from observation, the typical RX driver I see is a woman who looks of the age that I’d assume her kids are grown up, therefore she doesn’t need as much space/passenger capacity. This is in contrast to the MDX, QX60, X5, Q7 buyer that tends to be younger and usually seen with school-aged kids.
The thing that gets me is that there is no shame in Lincoln being Lincoln, or Buick being Buick. The whole “luxury” thing really kind of pisses me off. As much as I dislike Rolls Royce, they actually give you a product that can be defined as a luxury version. Big engines (that never get pushed), RWD (when they don’t understand the reasons for having RWD on a car and cheaper FWD would do), and leather everywhere does not define luxury. If it did, then the leather optioned Mustang would qualify as a luxury car. (Not knocking Mustangs, but they are not luxurious.) If a brand sold on what it actually provides, not the “mood” it sets in advertising, it would turn the market on it’s head. Selling luxury is making the customer feel like they are better than everyone else, not providing a better product.
You raise some excellent points, and I think you highlight the larger issue that there really is no one-size-fits-all definition of a luxury car. There are certainly general parameters and a lot of loose points many agree on, but everyone’s idea of what is a true luxury car and what isn’t comes down to the individual.
At least personally, a luxury car must have a balance of good driving dynamics, comfortable and quiet interior, and an appearance that exudes a bit more prestige than your average car. For me, the biggest determinant is how everything feels. The difference between a car I consider a luxury car and one that is not is the solid, heaviness of the interior components and controls (nothing hollow or rickety), premium finishes (real metal, wood, etc.), comfortable seats with many adjustments.
Thank you. The definition of luxury can only really be defined by the individual. If a car (or any possession, for that matter) confers status, then we have become nothing but money-grubbing, soulless idiots. As far as I am concerned, respect is the only thing that confers status. Now, if only Lexus, Buick, or any other car manufacturer would only aspire to put out the very best product that they could, at a price point that allows them a decent product at a small profit, and with the best quality that they can reasonably muster, then we would be in an automotive Utopia.
I’m reminded of the Chrysler ads of the sixties: “Positively No Junior Editions!”. A true luxury car must not have a visually similar cheap version, even one bearing another badge. Dulls the aura of exclusivity.
And I totally agree about feel being the most important characteristic.
ISs are the only Lexi selling at more than single figures here in Austria, probably because of the more European feel they possess.
My 50 years old lawyer BIL has a 3 year old 2.5L in Israel and he loves it. But he spends a lot of hours in the car travelling to meetings with clients/court hearings so he sees it as an extension of his office (plus – being registered as a company car – depreciation is tax-refundable). Having traveled in it on more than one occasion I can see the logic.
I’ve never really been a fan of Lexus, though I recognize they are pretty good cars.
A friend has had two ES-350s and they are pretty nice, I just can’t see myself owning and driving one.
I do especially like that almost-4-door pillarless look of the early models, and that sort of intrigued me.
This is probably Lexus’s best sedan design. The LS400 was really well proportioned, but the design details were generic. This generation ES has a great front end, and the hidden pillars are striking, too.
I used to park next to one with a blue velour interior. Much nicer than this beige leather.
The early cloth-seat Lexuses all looked better than the same cars with leather. The first-gen LS and first two generations of ES and RX offered cloth seats. This photo is from an LS with the burgundy red velour which is beautiful.
Can you imagine the ES offering a manual transmission today? They also have dropped the (never really appropriate) “sport sedan” label for the ES now that the IS fills that role.
The projector headlamps are also unique to this generations of ES, and were highlighted in a TV advert comparing their appearance to Waterford crystal and a Hasselblad lens.
I never knew the LS was offered with velour! This color is a bit bright for me–very 1980’s Cadillac.
I LOOOOOOOVE those early Cloth LS’s. Far more striking and creative looking. I hate the idea that cloth=no luxury. Ill bet the cloth in those was first rate. I remember how high quality the cloth and carpet felt in my ’92 Camry, im sure the LS was a cut above even that.
For me personally at least, my preference for leather is not so much about the image of luxury but rather cleanliness. Not only is it actually easy to clean, but it does not hold in the dust, germs, sweat, skin cells, and any other fluids/debris. Literally smack with your hand a cloth seat in a car that’s anything but brand-new, and it’s guaranteed that a cloud of dust will arise. I’m kind of a germaphobe, so cloth seats just don’t work for me, no matter how high quality the cloth. I’d much prefer leather, or even leatherette.
Brendan Saur
I’m with you 100%.
When I was younger I knew a neighbor who had a 1985 Lincoln Town Car that had Velour cloth interior. My Mom also dated a guy when I was around the same age that had a Nissan Z Sport car (I think like a 84 or 85). Even when younger (around 13 then). I thought to myself the car’s interiors should be exchanged.
I thought the Lincoln looked better with leather, and the Z coupe better with cloth. Especially since the Lincoln had a cloth carriage top. I think fabric feels good on the skin, if it’s high quality that is. However, like you said due to germs etc cars with fabric interiors when old tend to stink and smell musty..lol. I think getting into and out of a car with leather is much much easier since one glides into the seat. With fabric, getting in and out of a car can feel sticky somewhat. It’s pretty much mandatory that all luxury cars “MUST” have leather-the consumer demands it..
I get the germaphobe thing, but I typically shampoo my cloth seats every 5-6 months. Although, the Camry I just got now has leather. I do like it. Just cold in the mornings lol, but I guess everything has a trade off. I would probably say, my long history with Ford and Toyota as the two main brands we have used in my family turned me off partially to leather. It seems both companies have stepped it up in recent years, but I remember many Fords and Toyotas of the 90’s with leather that just seemed so markedly cheap. Maybe they stepped up the quality in the Lexi and the Lincolns, but I didn’t care for the cheap leather we had in a 1988 Sable LS wagon and 1993 Taurus LX Sedan. I hated the Leather in the 1995 Camry wagon my grandmother had as well.
I think leather when done well, will still look good after some years, with proper care of course. The problem is I have been acquainted with too many people who skimp on leather maintenence and after 10 years, their interiors look awful. Of course, the higher the price, im sure the quality improves from segment to segment. I just have too many memories of 90’s bread and butter cars with low end leather interiors.
I do have fond memories of my dad’s 1985 Eldorado Biarritz. Light blue with stainless steel roof on dark blue leather. Now that was some nice leather. My uncle had a 1989 300E when I was very young, he got it with leather, that was also amazing.
Every time I look at one of these I think of the prewar Packard 120 and Packard Six that allowed middle class people to drive the same brand of luxury car that was so popular with the Old Money crowd. Unfortunately, these lower priced models eventually ate the senior cars and Packard after the war never carried the luxury cred that the older ones did.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a big LS series Lexus. But these were everywhere.
I have seen a manual transmission ES in the wild when it was just a few years old. Oddly enough it was in the parking lot of an Adult Bookstore in Detroit, MI.
Great write-up Brendan! I actually think that this ES was an excellent car in the best GM tradition (and I mean that as a compliment). It was a savvy re-use of common corporate components dressed-up well for the high-life in more affluent zip codes. Instant Buick, so to speak (from the powerhouse Buick years of the 1950s through the early ’80s). And it worked like a charm.
The sad thing to me about Lexus is that the company peaked so early. The original LS400, SC400 and this ES300 made for a very compelling showroom in the early 1990s and the designs seemed very contemporary. The redesigns that arrived in the mid- to late-1990s however, were dull as dishwater. The 1995 LS400 and the replacement ES300 for 1997 were so similar in appearance to their predecessors that they seemed immediately old. The company’s focus swung to the RX300 and they rode the cross-over wave very effectively, but in the process became a brand for empty nesters and the late-middle-aged and older crowd. Instant Buick once again, but this time not in a good way (as in utterly boring cars for old-at-heart people as per Buick’s image after the mid-1980s). The advantage that Lexus still has over Buick is the enduring reputation for quality as well as a better dealer experience, which keeps the brand on many shopping lists for now. But Lexus does have a huge mountain to climb to regain relevance as anything other than a dowdy near-luxury brand. And “spindle” grilles are not the answer!
GN
Could not have said it better myself. You hit the nail on the head when you said Lexus peaked to early. Especially after a few years of depreciation where everyone could get their hands on one (and they did). Making the brand just as common as a Buick. Where as previously when first introduced Lexus were primarily only seen in affluent upper tier circles. With not a ton of dealerships initially, since they were getting established.
Hell by the mid 90’s Park Avenue Ultra’s & Riviera’s could hit the high 30’K mark easily when loaded to the max. I can recall say around 97 / 98 Lexus had lost it’s golden “Halo” luster. Around this time The SUV Market (of all ranges) had taken over the entire automotive game by storm-and still had not peaked in popularity. Cadillac & Lincoln were back in the game appealing to a youthful demographic by launching the SUV’s.
Lexus no longer rolls off a persons tongue like it us to. At one time, I can recall around the early 90’s where even if you knew someone that had a Lexus. It was like the owner became a mini celebrity when driving in their Lexus around town. People with Lexus’s back then were seen as savy and sophisticated person. Today, I know no one that desires a Lexus except middle age retirees & senior citizens. There are just too many (less expensive) lesser brands for consumers to choose from that have matched the Lexus level of polished refinement in quality, durability, and smoothness (Like Flagship model Kia’s). This fact, combined with the hideous new front “Predator” with his mouth open grill that is the face of the brand. Confirms my suspicions even more that the brand is in identity crisis mode. It’s trying to re-establish itself at this stage of the game will be very very difficult.
Right now Lexus is that man going through a mid-life crisis. In search of a woman half his age, trying to fit in with the young crowd by dressing & talking young. that sums up Lexus.
I always thought that this was one of the best looking luxury cars of the mid’90s. I would often admire them when I encountered them in traffic. Something about the low front end, projector headlights, hardtop roofline…. I just liked it. A lot.
I was not aware that you could get a manual trans in them for the first couple of years. I assumed that being a luxury car (and geared more towards luxury vs. sporty… ala BMW), it was auto only. I’m sure one of those these days is a unicorn.
The ES was and remains the DeVille for the Baby Boomer generation. I wonder what will take its place once the X’ers and Millennials come of age!
Bought this ’96 with 203k miles this fall as a commuter/winter beater to keep salt off my old 4Runner, paid $1600. Been very happy so far. Very comfortable, amazing interior quality, everything is nice and tight. Suspension is entirely original and still rides nicely. All control arm bushings, ball joints, etc are rock solid. I just replaced the rear swaybar bushings when I bought it (cheap and easy to DIY) and put a full brake kit on front and rear ($140 all in), come spring I will install some fresh struts to restore a fully compliant and silent ride. Also had my brother install a new timing belt and water pump. Got some Camry steel wheels from the Junkyard and threw some cheap Firestone Winterforce snow tires on. Just about the perfect winter car. Fuel economy has been a bit less than great in the winter, 20mpg or so. Summer mixed driving returns 24 or so, highway trips 26.
The 1992-96 Lexus ES300 and Toyota Camry are among the best cars Toyota has ever produced and sold for the US market. A friend owned a ’92 ES300 (3 year lease) and I was very impressed with the car as a total package—no BMW, but never meant to be. The number of these still on the road now point out how well Toyota put the cars together back then.
My ’92 literally just bit the dust last month. 219k. Power steering pulley failed, a hole was bore in the pump and whatever did that cut through 3 of the lines. Wasn’t worth the $$$. I drove that car for 12 years. Was a great car. That was the best gen. I got a low mileage ’99 XLE V6 black on tan. Its very nice, but nothing compares to gen 3.
I often wonder if Lexus dealers threw in complimentary pantsuits when women purchased these, these were the cars of choice for female realtors hocking those cheesy McMansions being built up in the Chicago suburb I grew up in during the late 90s-00s. Also had a teacher with one in high school who didn’t like that i called it a rebadged Camry, but ironically he was one of the few teachers I had a good rapport with back then.
Stereotypes aside the second generation effort always impressed me, very distinct from the Camry(which I also like this generation of) and definitely handsome in the LS sort of way. The ES really started to show it’s Camry roots more clearly with the third generation – which in it’s defense was the Toyota becoming more Lexus like with the Lexus appearing basically identical – culminating with the fourth gen, which was just abysmal.
Also had a teacher with one in high school who didn’t like that i called it a rebadged Camry…
My wife didn’t like it when I’d ask how her “Toyota with an arrowhead” (Pontiac Vibe) was treating her.
Some people just don’t understand auto enthusiast humor. 😛
I know someone who got mad when I told them their Suzuki Verona was a rebadged Daewoo. I called it a “Suzwoo.” Needless to say, they didn’t find it too funny. Some people really DON’T get it!
Why do you say the Gen 4 is “abysmal”? I think the Gen 4 has by far the best ES interior of all. I do agree that the exterior design is less appealing. I’d also argue that every consecutive ES has distinguished itself more from it’s Camry equivalent- the Gen 2 ES looks way more like a Camry XLE inside than any other generation that followed (granted, that was a great Camry).
These did nothing outstanding. That’s not a criticism, it’s what they were meant to do, and did it well, like their Camry forebears. Their styling was a major leap ahead of the early-1980s look of the prior ES. But they did look like the budget ran short when it came time to do up the interior door panels, and they went with the Rubbermaid look unbefitting the rest of a competent and comfortable car.
The door panels are my least favorite part of this car as well and look cheaper than the concurrent Camry. The ES300 got the same treatment as the original Infiniti G20, and that is NOT a compliment.
But they drive for 300,000 miles without anything ever breaking which obviously counts for a lot.
What strikes me looking at that very pretty ES300 (thanks Brendan) is that there hasn’t been much progress in the last 23 years. Driving a new ES is going to be pretty much the same experience. MPG a touch better. Acceleration more than a touch but the ’94 had all you would ever need. Comparing a 23 year old car in 1994 to something new then was a quantum leap. Go back 23 years from 1971 to 1948 and there was even more change. Go back another 23 years to 1925 and the Model A hadn’t even come out they were still making Model Ts.
Hmm. Interesting point about the lack of progress in the last 23 years. I quite agree with you. Disregarding all the added ‘stuff’, have the ‘bones’ of the average new car gotten as good as they can be? The old ‘longer, lower, wider’ mantra is long gone, body design seems to have stagnated or maybe regressed (smaller windows), we don’t need more performance in most cases, and economy is great.
So where do we go from here? Unless the old one dies, where’s the compelling reason to buy a new car?
It’s a mature industry. Changes are much slower. Which makes the car industrious a bit boring.
The area that’s interesting for me is what truly is new: EVs (especially Tesla) and autonomy. Lots of exciting stuff happening there, almost daily; it’s like the 1960s all over.
Safety has improved – enormously. And the mileage becomes more impressive once you look at the weights of some current models as compared with their predecessors. But I agree about the “armored car” styling all new cars seem to have these days.
The airliner hasn’t fundamentally changed much in 57 years. With the exception of the failed SST’s, we still travel no faster than the 707 or DC-8 of 1959. It took a mere 56 years to get from the Wright brothers to the jet airliner. Yes, the fuel efficiency is greater, range is longer and entertainment systems are great, but the latest Airbus 321 or Boeing 737 Max are still fundamentally the same in capability as those first generation jets.
Paul is right. Technologies and industries mature. Computers, tablets and smart phones are also maturing.
Brendan, this is one of your best pieces yet!
It seems in Australia, Lexus’ reputation as a senior-friendly brand was cemented quite early and I’d credit the ES most of all for this. Lexus did seem to migrate buyers to the IS and GS as the ES’ price soared further upwards. I think eventually the ES and GS overlapped in price.
It was nice to see the IS and GS become more popular because they were more interesting. Still, a lot of people bought them in beige.
Interesting point about the ES outselling the GS. When you think about it, who would’ve picked the more expensive GS? It didn’t offer much more in the way of luxury. It handled better, sure, but its milquetoast styling and Lexus’ fairly conservative image would’ve precluded enthusiasts’ attention. Maybe some car enthusiast 5-Series or E-Class buyers, tired of repair costs of a European car, might have been tempted. But a lot of luxury car buyers likely didn’t care what was FWD or RWD so long as it was sufficiently luxurious.
On that note, I never noticed how bland those door panels are. Considering how nice a top-end
’92-96 Camry was, I’d see little reason to spend more for an ES. The dealership experience would be superior, sure, but is it worth thousands of dollars more? What was the price differential between a Camry XLE V6 and an ES300, anyway? I don’t have my Consumer Guides handy…
The revised LS and ES of the mid-90s were such painfully cautious redesigns. The ES was pretty enough as it is so I didn’t feel it dated badly but the LS design looked a bit tired by the mid-
1990s. The following generation went a little weird in the styling department.
The death of the RWD BMW X1 and the slow sales of the first Caddy SRX perhaps show RWD platforms aren’t demanded for luxury crossovers so long as the luxury and versatility are there. So, the RX doesn’t seem too incongruous in today’s more aggressive Lexus lineup. The ES is a bit of an odd duck though with its more conservative styling and large dimensions. It’s not completely stodgy though and it’s clearly profitable so Lexus should probably keep it; the US is by far the ES’ biggest market. Not everyone wants RWD and sporty handling and the ES is a perfectly competent, luxuriously-appointed sedan.
Thanks Will for your more than kind words and valuable insight.
Your inquiry got me wondering so I just did a quick cars.com check. For this car’s 1994 model year at least, the MSRP of the Camry XLE V6 was $23,978 versus the Lexus ES300’s MSRP of $31,200. I’d say $7,000 back then was a considerable jump.
The price difference between a Camry XLE V-6 and an ES300 in 1992 was in the neighborhood of $5,000, comparably equipped. A good bit of money — that was a difference of about 20% — but you got different and arguably nicer styling, better interior materials (although I agree with Brendan that they could have splurged a little more on details like the door panels), two years’ more warranty coverage (five years rather than three), VIP service, and a Lexus badge.
So, not a runaway value proposition, but if you were going for a well-equipped V-6 Camry, it wasn’t a terrible idea. (If price and value were a bigger concern, you’d probably be looking at four-cylinder model, which is what most Camry buyers bought.)
Disagree that the styling of the 1st-gen GS300 was milquetoast. On the contrary I quite liked it immediately (as a 13 year old at the time) and I still think it’s a fine piece of work. Not exciting perhaps, but it’s one of those designs that just *works* perfectly. Giugiaro design, if I recall?
The 2nd gen. ES was a very competent car of the time. Ultra refined compared to it’s peers, if lacking in sporting pretense compared to it’s successor. The 3rd gen ES did change that, however. It was considered the best near luxury sedan available by Car and Driver when new. It won a 9-car comparison test by a sizeable margin over it’s peers in Feb. 1997, and was specifically praised for it’s agility. The test figures back that up as fact. Credit the electronic adjustable suspension system that was optional and really transformed these cars. People somehow choose to ignore this quite a bit when talking about the older ES series. It wasn’t until the 4th gen. arrived that they became Buick like.
I didn’t see that comparison! Do you remember what the ES was up against? I can’t find a scan online.
$34,000 was the ceiling they put on the test cars to avoid the luxury tax penalty, and they specifically ruled out the BMW 3 Series and Mercedes C-class because both would have been stripper 4 cylinder models to fit that requirement. The order they finished was as follows:
Saab 900 SE V6
Acura 3.2 TL, Ford Taurus SHO, Infiniti I30 (3-way tie)
Mazda Millenia L
Cadillac Catera
Mitsubishi Diamante LS
Volvo 850GLT
Lexus ES300
Car and Driver also pointed out that they really liked the Volvo, but were nearly certain they were sent a ringer for the test. The Volvo was at the bottom end of the power to weight ratio but absolutely destroyed the other cars in the acceleration runs, and C/D also noted that other 850’s they tested in the past were nowhere near as quick as this particular example. If you take that into consideration and remove the Volvo’s 2nd place finish, the Lexus was voted best by a 7 point lead (with the Volvo it was still ahead 3 points).
I would love to see a scanned copy of this article… What a fascinating round-up and some surprising results!
Neat find with the Boston photo – given that I spent several years at a certain university down that street, I recognized it as Boston right away.
What special edition of the ES had the AMG-like 5-spoke alloys (not shown in any of the pictures)?
I know, right?! I drive right down Comm Ave rather frequently. In fact, it was the street lamps that jumped out at me as being from there.
The ES300 you’re referring to was in the form of either the 2000MY Platinum Edition or the 1999-2001MY Coach Edition (as in the handbag designer).
I actually have a soft spot for the ES300, the third gen maybe more, but I do think the second gen is a good looking vehicle. I do think that Lexus, more than Infiniti and Acura, understood what the American Luxury car buyer wanted best, and delivered in spades. It just had to look nice, be well appointed, comfortable, and start the majority of the time, all while not forcing you to sell your blood in order to make the dealership bills and getting said bills very rarely. In that respect, the ES300 did a good job.
I guess the other problem that faced Lexus, until the introduction of the RX, is that most customers didn’t trade up from the ES, because there was nothing to trade up from. At least in the customers eyes. The GS was more or less forgettable, so it wasn’t really worth the extra premium. The SC400 may have had the performance, but it’s stiffer ride and limited practicality compared to it’s siblings meant it was aiming at a different market. (A market, I should add, that was starting to decline by that same time period). The LS400 may have seemed like a nice upgrade, but it’s rising cost meant that a lot of people were leary about it. The LS400, when first introduced was about 40k in price for a fully loaded model, which put it in a price bracket where most people could consider it. In 1994, that price had risen to a little over 50k. Starting MSRP as well. While it was cheaper than an S-Class or 7-Series, it’s price meant it was out of reach for most consumers. (The only full-size V8 powered RWD alternatives that were cheaper were the Lincoln Town Car, the Cadillac Fleetwood, and the Buick Roadmaster. But I doubt anyone shopping for a Lexus at the time would’ve seriously considered a domestic brand.)
So, the ES was a long term keeper, because it was both affordable, and for most people it was good enough. But, complacency breeds laziness, and when people become complacent, so do the people in charge. While I’m not making it out to seem like Lexus will go the way of Old GM, the fact that it’s seen as little more than a Japanese Buick in the modern age, isn’t a good sign for long term health.
am in the minority that absolutely loves the original ES250, and am on my second one (while still on a perpetual hunt for a replacement for my departed 94 Legend 6MT. The trim, angular design is bordering on timeless nearly 30 years later while the ES300, although certainly attractive is very much a product of the 90’s. The 97 generation is even more generic but the 2000 refresh (along with the 98 LS400 update) made such a difference that make those my favorite Lexus models. I think I would love these models more if the wonderful Camry wagon also had a Lexus transformation.
I also have a strange fetish for cloth seats in luxury cars, they are more comfortable and wear far better than leather and the cloth that Lexus (and Acura in the Legend) used is some of the nicest I have ever felt. My ES250 is black with a gray cloth interior that looks almost showroom new…I have never seen a non-leather ES300, but a few LS400s. I even retrofitted a rare cloth interior into my Legend LS coupe,
One interesting tidbit is that the ES250 had more wood than the LS400 and ES300, covering the shift console/ashtray, window switches AND the entire radio/AC stack, nice thick slabs of the same burled walnut used in the LS, and not sparingly applied to just the ashtray.
I don’t dislike the ES250. I think its principal issues were that it was still obviously what it had been conceived as — viz., a V20 Vista/Camry four-door pillared “hardtop” — and was too close to the end of its life cycle when it arrive in the U.S.
The metaphor works perfectly. Great piece, Brendan.
I really liked these when new, especially the unique for the era headlamp design. Still thing it’s a good, cohesive design nearly 25 years later. The Original Japanese Buick? I’d say so (in a complimentary way.)
Regardless of the position or pretensions of the ES300, BMW/Mercedes/Audi/Cadillac WISH they had the quality, real & perceived, of Lexus.
As for Champagne, Schramsberg (CA) is the best value out there for those who want excellent Champagnoise better than Prosecco and don’t wish to pay the inflated prices for over-rated Dom &c.