Talk:Lexus LS

message: Text states "The five-passenger cabin also featured a walnut and leather-trimmed interior, power-adjustable memory seats,"   - but isn't this really a 4 seater? the rear bench is distinctly 2+2.
I assume USA UCF20 II (1998)model did not have optional Dynamic Handling Pack , which was offered on UK  models?
Also isn't this the first car to be laser welded?
tali -04/06/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.44.180 (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five-passenger cabin 

message: Comedian Norman Pace  LS400 (UCF20)
Footballer John Barnes  LS400 (UCF10)
Comedian jeremy Beadle  LS400
Footballer Geoff Hurst LS460SE-L with personal plate 66GH
Golfer Colin Montgomery  LS430
tali -05/06/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.44.180 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteable UK owners 

message: Here it is: . OSX (talk • contributions) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for the info, I followed the links to the original JDM website which posted the info, it's now linked. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 facelift 

message: Shouldn't there be a pic of the reclining rear seat?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catyfro (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a photo on the Lexus LS Hybrid page. SynergyStar (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recliner seat 

message: I've had a couple of these cars, and I found this article extremely interesting and informative.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.177 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work 

message: Following up from :Talk:Lexus_LS_(XF40)#Timeline_refs, the below recently-added statements  received citation needed tags or vague tags due to a lack of sources:
UCF10:
*"...the final design for the production Lexus LS 400 (chassis code UCF10) was approved in May 1987."
*"Subsequently, a U.S. design patent was filed by the Toyota Motor Corporation on May 13, 1987 for an unnamed model."
*"Following the starting of LS sales, work begun on improvements throughout 1990 and 1991. By the end of 1991, the updated model was completed concurrently alongside..."
UCF20:
*"The final design was frozen during 1992-1993, with various tests running worldwide throughout 1993 and into late 1994."
*"Work on mid-cycle changes to the UCF20 began in early 1995 and continued concurrently alongside initial development for the next-generation UCF30..."
UCF30:
*"Following the initial sales of the new model, in 2001 development begun on both the facelift and its successor due in 2006. By early 2003, the updated UCF30 was completed..."
USF40:
*"Development on fourth generation LS began in 2001, with the final production design taking shape in 2003 to 2004."
These statements seem plausible, and the effort to improve the article is appreciated, but per WP:Verifiability there needs to be reliable sourcing. For all 4 generations, searches through the bibliography books, Google News archives, Google, and elsewhere have turned up no references to confirm mid-cycle refresh development and test dates thus far.  This information might not be publicly available. 
Regarding the dates of development, book sources confirm the May 1987 final approval for the UCF10, and have been added with page numbers and dates.  Existing article sources state that the UCF20 was developed from Spring 1991 to late 1994, and that statement has been kept.  Another existing citation says that the UCF30 development took four years, and that has been kept. No source could be found stating that the USF40/41 model began development in 2001, although it seems plausible. Final design approval dates are also unavailable for all but the first generation as of this writing.
Lastly, regarding the design patent filed on May 13, 1987, a check of the US Patent office site here was made, which confirms a 2005 patent date on the XF40 article.  However, a review of the 10 patents applied for by Toyota on May 13, 1987 appears to show images of a different vehicle--possibly the ES 250. Because the patent images do not resemble the first generation LS 400, the statement indicating a patent filing for the UCF10 on that date has been removed.  Possibly it was another date?
Thanks for helping improve the article, but as is site policy, reliable sources are needed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: SynergyStar, excellent research! Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline refs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Lexus LS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId%3D115368
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&source=emfromsendlink&format=PDF&document_id=977831251&extdocid=977831251_1_eng_pdf&serialid=mloPNv7E0vSpbVXspCzREiMSkukb0pOZlgZROxrMRwE%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216071033/http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=12920 to http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=12920
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId%3D119074
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/in_the_world/pdf2009/production_en.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/about_toyota/in_the_world/pdf2010/production_en.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/C40CA2CB6C8577F1CA257285001E7302?open&template=domWheels
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/dc2007/05.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/who-makes-the-best-cars/overview/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The in-depth information on the 200B development programme with illustrations, does not have a direct URL to review it, unless you purchase access. I am always willing to spend my own money, to improve the content on Wikipedia (in being in a financial position that has allowed me to), but I will not post it in entirety for piracy concerns. Here is a sample of the content I have: 2013 200B Clay. I have no reason to make things up out of thin air. It is best I can do, to support word of mouth and one-on-one interviews, that are "off the record".--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Sources (WP:PAYWALL) 

message: I saw your recent edits regarding power figures and thought I'd check. China, HK, Malaysia, and many others always use metric horsepower. There is absolutely no requirement or global acceptance of using "PS" to denote metric hp (although they often do so in Hong Kong) and it is clear that the Paul Tan as well as the HK reference are for metric hp. Personally I don't care if we lead with PS or hp or kW, although I think kW is the WP standard, what counts is that the figure is correct. Allow me to illustrate:
Input                                     	Output	Notes
                    	      	correct
       	      	correct but reverse-engineered from ref
        	      	Lkas123's edit
	      	Stepho's edit
I don't know how to keep this from happening and I know we are not to blame for there being two kinds of very similar units with interchangable abbreviations, but I know that I am unhappy with Wikipedia containing errors like this. I suspect half the power figures on newer cars with a global market are fully mixed up. I think that including all three units is the way to go; if we use  editors can insert whichever unit the original source contains and the output will always be as it should be. The order can be discussed, but for me SI comes first, customary metric second, and non-metric dead last. Not including all three invariably ends up with someone "fixing" the units to add the output that they are familiar with. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Displaying kW, PS, hp in that order sounds good to me. My only beef with the recent edit is that the number typed into  or  should always be the number that was in the reference (to make double checking it against the reference easier) while still keeping the order as metric first (via |order=flip or |order=out) and that standard abbreviations like "km/h" are better than the long and tedious "kilometre per hour" (also avoiding UK vs US spelling issues).  Stepho  talk  02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Horsepower