Dumped my EX35, reliability gas mileage

[ANBYOND]

Saving on gasoline can be overrated.
My wife commutes a lot but still has "only" drove 130k miles in 10 years she owned her Toyota Highlander (that is not economical)
Considering today's price and the number of miles she would not have paid more than 20k in gasoline in the 10 years.

so my point is: In 10 years of usage having a hybrid would only be worth IF the car cost no more than 10k more. We all know hybrid cars cost more than "normal" cars.


the only advantage of hybrid is the car pool usage.


if one really want to save money than better by a small 4 cylinder 1.6 liter car like the fiat 500 of Ford Fiesta. Car cost way more and much better mpg than a premium/luxury car.

Fiesta does almost 40mpg and a "high end" SES cost 18k base.


My point is: If I really want car pool lane usage then Id get an electrical car. Hybrid like Prius wont do it anymore.
If I want to really save money, Id get the most comfortable and better a 1.6 liter i can find. Can only think on fiesta right now.
If I want Luxury and confort ..... Well, that is why i bought the EX35. it is not as tall as normal SUV, not too big but sits tall and has great performance and tons of high end gadgets.

A few points.. the Fiesta does not do 40mpg in town, only highway. It's EPA gas mileage is noticeably worse than the Lexus. Only 29/39 vs 43/40. Go sit in a Fiesta and go sit in the Lexus.. worlds apart.
I got luxury, comfort and high end gadgets in the CT200H, only missing the acceleration, but can't have everything. The CT cost less than my EX. in 10 yrs of owning the CT, I will save $20k in gas vs the EX. at current gas prices. Both cars have tight backseats. CT's has more legroom. The CT actually has 4 more inches of rear leg room than EX.. 32.5 vs 28.5.

[ANBYOND]

FYI.
Manufacturer's specs list EX35 mpg 17/24 and Pontiac GTO 6.0L V8 400hp as 14/19.

Incorrect.. the 2005-2006 GTO 6.0L V8 400hp is 16 City and 21 highway on the original window sticker/EPA certification. The 14/19 is the supposed re-vamped numbers BS that started for the 2008 model year. I say BS, because I get better than the 16/21 on my GTO. Upwards of 23 on long highway trips close to the same the EX gave me.

[ANBYOND]

Went further on this subject. An average driver will drive 12k-15k a year. Based on that i mentioned the savings would not be that much to justify "dumping" the EX35. Moreover, although the mpg of the EX35 is not great (24 highway) it is not too far behind the top average in the class (28mpg).

NOW, with my research i totally understand why someone would want a 45mpg car and dump the EX35 (or any other gasoline based car for that matter).

on a 90 miles per day commute I assume 80% or so are highway and 20% city. fueleconomy.gov has a nice site to compare fuel economy cars.
a 90 miles commute would result in a 24k miles per year usage.

in a year:
Audi A3 TDI: $2,550
Lexus CT 200h: $2,400
Infinity EX35: $4,700

That is a save of 21k in 10 years from EX35 to A3

An average person driving 15k a year would spend
Audi A3 TDI: $1,700
Lexus CT 200h: $1,500
Infinity EX35: $3,050

That is a save of 14k in 10 years from EX35 to A3

I dont drive much. I average 8k a year

Audi A3 TDI: $900
Lexus CT 200h: $800
Infinity EX35: $1,650

That is a save of 8k in 10 years from EX35 to A3

In short, an average person would save from 8k to 14k in TEN years. when one spend 40k to purchase a new loaded EX35 it is not that bad

a person doing a high commute and purchasing a non loaded A3 (reason to save money) would be able to buy another A3 (no loaded) in 10 years. That sounds like a nice trade off.

That said: If i had to commute 90k per day and i knew it would be like that for several years then I would dump it for the nissan Leaf. not only Id save a lot of money but would have carpool lane access. Would save 37k in ten years commuting 90 miles day to work AND would get to work faster as id have pool lane access.

If not, I think id still choose confort/technology instead of savings as i know if i was commuting 90 miles per day id be looking already for a new job closer to home.

Yes it depends on your driving. For me the CT200h will pay off and makes sense, to others here it won't. As for comfort/technology, the CT200h as just as much of that as the EX35...but with far better gas mileage. Only negative is acceleration. But in stop and go driving you can't make use of 297 horse and 6.5 seconds 0-60 of the EX AWD.

[bulls4ever]

A few points.. the Fiesta does not do 40mpg in town, only highway. It's EPA gas mileage is noticeably worse than the Lexus. Only 29/39 vs 43/40. Go sit in a Fiesta and go sit in the Lexus.. worlds apart.
I got luxury, comfort and high end gadgets in the CT200H, only missing the acceleration, but can't have everything. The CT cost less than my EX. in 10 yrs of owning the CT, I will save $20k in gas vs the EX. at current gas prices. Both cars have tight backseats. CT's has more legroom. The CT actually has 4 more inches of rear leg room than EX.. 32.5 vs 28.5.

Living in Brazil i had a Fiesta for 3 years so i know what is like driving that crap car lol. I know it is worlds apart, but i mentioned as :if the reason is mainly/only to save money that would make a lot of sense (car and gas cost). That car was small but actually good front head/legroom (for its size) but need someone to push the car to go on an incline rofl. City mpg is still better, but we are talking about a commute car, so highway matters more.

Backseat ... does the EX35 have backseat????? lol I am already thinking about driving with the seats folded.

Things i love about the EX and likely wont have another car without it.
1. It is VERY pretty inside. does not look cheap at all.
2. keyless entry/start. Lol, my wife is jealous now.
3. around view rear camera. WOW, takes a bit to get used to not look back all of the time, but it is awesome!
4. and the thing i can no longer live without ... Intelligent cruise control. Only thing that would beat that was a car with full stop (my 2008 isnt)

things i dont like
1. the engine is powerful, but 5 gears????? im glad they fixed in the newest versions.
2. no dual clutch transmission. It would increase the mpg and be more smooth changing gears.

[ANBYOND]

A few points.. the Fiesta does not do 40mpg in town, only highway. It's EPA gas mileage is noticeably worse than the Lexus. Only 29/39 vs 43/40. Go sit in a Fiesta and go sit in the Lexus.. worlds apart.
I got luxury, comfort and high end gadgets in the CT200H, only missing the acceleration, but can't have everything. The CT cost less than my EX. in 10 yrs of owning the CT, I will save $20k in gas vs the EX. at current gas prices. Both cars have tight backseats. CT's has more legroom. The CT actually has 4 more inches of rear leg room than EX.. 32.5 vs 28.5.

Living in Brazil i had a Fiesta for 3 years so i know what is like driving that crap car lol. I know it is worlds apart, but i mentioned as :if the reason is mainly/only to save money that would make a lot of sense (car and gas cost). That car was small but actually good front head/legroom (for its size) but need someone to push the car to go on an incline rofl. City mpg is still better, but we are talking about a commute car, so highway matters more.

Backseat ... does the EX35 have backseat????? lol I am already thinking about driving with the seats folded.

Things i love about the EX and likely wont have another car without it.
1. It is VERY pretty inside. does not look cheap at all.
2. keyless entry/start. Lol, my wife is jealous now.
3. around view rear camera. WOW, takes a bit to get used to not look back all of the time, but it is awesome!
4. and the thing i can no longer live without ... Intelligent cruise control. Only thing that would beat that was a car with full stop (my 2008 isnt)

things i dont like
1. the engine is powerful, but 5 gears????? im glad they fixed in the newest versions.
2. no dual clutch transmission. It would increase the mpg and be more smooth changing gears.

The EX35 backseat is not as bad as some people make it out to be.. I'm close to 6 feet tall and I can fit ok in it.
I think the EX 5spd auto shifts better than the 7 speed auto (after having many G37X with 7spd auto). What should be really said is why does Infiniti only get 1mpg better highway with 2 extra gears? LOL! EPA 24 with 7spd vs EPA 23 with 5spd... I thought they would have gotten at least 25 or 26mpg.

[ANBYOND]

If not, I think id still choose confort/technology instead of savings as i know if i was commuting 90 miles per day id be looking already for a new job closer to home.

I'd agree to try to find something closer, but that is easier said, then actually done, esp in today's economy.

[XIS]

Honestly, I think the CT200H is a very good looking car. and I love hatchbacks... I do wish it had about 50 more horses. I think I would be much more interested,,,,even if it got 5MPG less with the extra ponies. The front and back room is very similar. Room for bags in the back with seats up is bigger in EX... Can you put rails and cross-bars on the CT?
I would keep my EX, but interested in trading my wife's RX for one of those. (she doesn't need the ponies!)

[ANBYOND]

Honestly, I think the CT200H is a very good looking car. and I love hatchbacks... I do wish it had about 50 more horses. I think I would be much more interested,,,,even if it got 5MPG less with the extra ponies. The front and back room is very similar. Room for bags in the back with seats up is bigger in EX... Can you put rails and cross-bars on the CT?
I would keep my EX, but interested in trading my wife's RX for one of those. (she doesn't need the ponies!)

I agree on the CT using some more power

Overall room is similar. I believe the ex is 88 cu feet interior vs 86 cu ft for CT. For some reason CT has 4 more inches of rear legroom than ex, 32.5 vs 28.5. Sitting in ct it feels like slightly more room there

Rear cargo is 14 cu ft vs 18 in the ex. But the ex rear window really slopes into the cargo area much more than the CT So the CT isnt that much smaller if you really stuff it.

Not aure about factory, but You can put after market roof rails on the ct200h, thule makes some.

[bulls4ever]

If not, I think id still choose confort/technology instead of savings as i know if i was commuting 90 miles per day id be looking already for a new job closer to home.

I'd agree to try to find something closer, but that is easier said, then actually done, esp in today's economy.

no doubt about it, but hopefully the economy will not be like this for next 10 years ... i mentioned id be looking for another one. may take long but eventually I'd find.

I'm expecting things to shift for good in 3/4 years. Real estate economy is already shifting to become seller market instead of buyers.

I sold my house. Put the value a bit more than market value and it ended in a bidding war selling it for more than asking price. Doubt I'd be able to sell like this a year ago. Several houses, near my house, there were for sell last year and failed to sell were sold about the same time as mine.

People were selling their big SUV cars to buy compact ones like mini to save in gas. I have noticed people, in SF bay area at least, now reverting and buying bigger cars again.

Said that, i see light at the end of the tunnel

when I lived in Brazil and he economy was pretty bad in there (several years ago) I had to buy a very economical car to save money in gas and car cost. the winner was the ford fiesta 1.0 !!! I had a nice Peugeot 306 before but i could not afford the gas (and its high insurance) cost.

Someone mentioned about liking hatch. Yeah, i love hatch. reason why i loved my VW GTi. Just not enjoying getting in and out sitting low. EX has that hatch looking and sits taller.

[minimo3]

Most of my the cars I've owned have been 3.0 or larger V6's, but if I were buying today I think a 2.0 4cylinder is just right. Even the 2.3L in our Mazda is overkill. Roads are so congested and there's so much traffic that my average speed reading is around 25mph. 140hp is all I'd ever need. If had extra garage space I'd get a Prius and a Scion FR-S. But that's just me, for those of you that need to merge from 0-80 onto a freeway and commute long distances I can see the need to get something powerful.

[bulls4ever]

Most of my the cars I've owned have been 3.0 or larger V6's, but if I were buying today I think a 2.0 4cylinder is just right. Even the 2.3L in our Mazda is overkill. Roads are so congested and there's so much traffic that my average speed reading is around 25mph. 140hp is all I'd ever need. If had extra garage space I'd get a Prius and a Scion FR-S. But that's just me, for those of you that need to merge from 0-80 onto a freeway and commute long distances I can see the need to get something powerful.

a V6 on a car like Prius (size) is overkill. bigger cars weight a lot more (specially if fully loaded with people) and thus the need for more power

My GTi 2.0 turbo was very fast.

I always had 4 cylinders cars at 2.0L at most EX35 is the first V6 and I agree with you about power. i was actually looking for a 4 cylinder car in my replacement for the GTi. I just felt in love to the EX35 for being the perfect size and all of its goodies.

new RDX (2013) will even shut down some cylinders and work with 2 or 3 instead of all 6 in the freeway when it is not needed at the cost of likely more noise (even though they say the car has noise reducer or something like that)

Looks like we all agree that in short commutes it doesnt matter much. I'm just trying to understand why some that dumped the cars didnt dump for the Leaf.

Leaf is way more economical and has car pool lane access.

My wife commute is 17 miles (one way) and with no traffic it takes around 20 minutes. But because of traffic it takes 45 minutes. a Leaf would save her 50 minutes daily.

I dont have problems with traffic because of my working hours so pool lane means little to nothing to me.

i am wondering if you two that dumped the cars have pool lane access and if that would have helped saving time (time is also money lol)

[ANBYOND]

Most of my the cars I've owned have been 3.0 or larger V6's, but if I were buying today I think a 2.0 4cylinder is just right. Even the 2.3L in our Mazda is overkill. Roads are so congested and there's so much traffic that my average speed reading is around 25mph. 140hp is all I'd ever need. If had extra garage space I'd get a Prius and a Scion FR-S. But that's just me, for those of you that need to merge from 0-80 onto a freeway and commute long distances I can see the need to get something powerful.

a V6 on a car like Prius (size) is overkill. bigger cars weight a lot more (specially if fully loaded with people) and thus the need for more power

My GTi 2.0 turbo was very fast.

I always had 4 cylinders cars at 2.0L at most EX35 is the first V6 and I agree with you about power. i was actually looking for a 4 cylinder car in my replacement for the GTi. I just felt in love to the EX35 for being the perfect size and all of its goodies.

new RDX (2013) will even shut down some cylinders and work with 2 or 3 instead of all 6 in the freeway when it is not needed at the cost of likely more noise (even though they say the car has noise reducer or something like that)


Looks like we all agree that in short commutes it doesnt matter much. I'm just trying to understand why some that dumped the cars didnt dump for the Leaf.

Leaf is way more economical and has car pool lane access.

My wife commute is 17 miles (one way) and with no traffic it takes around 20 minutes. But because of traffic it takes 45 minutes. a Leaf would save her 50 minutes daily.

I dont have problems with traffic because of my working hours so pool lane means little to nothing to me.

i am wondering if you two that dumped the cars have pool lane access and if that would have helped saving time (time is also money lol)

To you the GTI Turbo was fast.. compared to me it's slow. My stock GTO is 4.6 seconds 0-60..(mine is far from stock, around 100horse in upgrades) I believe a stock GTI Turbo is 6.5 to 7.0 seconds similar to or slower than EX35.

I didn't "dump" for the leaf because of it's short 100 miles or less range and no backup gas engine, can't take it on a highway vacation trip, if you run out of juice you are stranded. Once you run low you have to charge for 8hrs, can't just fill up at a gas station. The charger is an additional $2k I believe and you need space for a dedicated 40amp breaker on your electrical panel in your home. Which would mean upgrading my electrical panel service that is nearly full now, another $2k. You can charge with a regular plug socket, but that takes 20hrs.. no thanks. There is the extra charge per month on your electrical bill, which is probably less than gas. The warranty is 1 yr shorter and service is far crappier at Nissan vs Lexus. I can have Lexus come to my house to pickup my car to get it serviced, can't do that with a Nissan.

My commute and driving doesn't offer car pool lanes... so doesn't matter if I drive the GTO or a Leaf, LOL!

[ANBYOND]

no doubt about it, but hopefully the economy will not be like this for next 10 years ... i mentioned id be looking for another one. may take long but eventually I'd find.

I'm expecting things to shift for good in 3/4 years. Real estate economy is already shifting to become seller market instead of buyers.

I sold my house. Put the value a bit more than market value and it ended in a bidding war selling it for more than asking price. Doubt I'd be able to sell like this a year ago. Several houses, near my house, there were for sell last year and failed to sell were sold about the same time as mine.

People were selling their big SUV cars to buy compact ones like mini to save in gas. I have noticed people, in SF bay area at least, now reverting and buying bigger cars again.

Said that, i see light at the end of the tunnel

when I lived in Brazil and he economy was pretty bad in there (several years ago) I had to buy a very economical car to save money in gas and car cost. the winner was the ford fiesta 1.0 !!! I had a nice Peugeot 306 before but i could not afford the gas (and its high insurance) cost.

Someone mentioned about liking hatch. Yeah, i love hatch. reason why i loved my VW GTi. Just not enjoying getting in and out sitting low. EX has that hatch looking and sits taller.

[/quote]

Yes, hopefully housing and economy picks up. The NY area it goes both ways.. some buy small cars, some bigger... with gas prices going the resale values on the bigger less fuel efficient cars/suv's is dropping again, resale on the hybrids is increasing.

Yes the EX was a nice height, not too tall, not too low. But with that height came reduced handling, compared to a back to back test drive with a G37 sedan.

Remember, pluses and negatives with all cars. Nothing is perfect.

[beteez]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012040 ... /120409856
Interesting that most hybrid owners do not rebuy hybrids.

[ANBYOND]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012040 ... /120409856
Interesting that most hybrid owners do not rebuy hybrids.

Define most? If you read the full article...
"The study also found that 41 percent of the Prius owners back in the market either bought another Prius or a hybrid from another automaker."
"For Honda hybrid owners, 52 percent stayed with the Honda brand, but less than one in five bought another hybrid from any brand."

The last time prices at the pump crested the $4 mark, (Summer of 2008) owners of fuel-thirsty cars and trucks scrambled to trade in their gas guzzler for a high-mileage replacement. They were getting very poor resale values on their BIG SUV's and trucks. You will see this happen again.

I turned in 47 miles per gallon the CT.. the same exact driving that I would only turn in 16 to 18 miles per gallon the EX, while using premium fuel.

[beteez]

41% is not most anything over 50% would be most & the Prius has the best retention.

[XIS]

Honestly - these two puppies are in completely different categories, so I am not sure why they are still being compared?

Yes, the hybrid has much better MPG at the expense of much less performance. (10+ seconds 0-60)
Yes, the EX35 is one of the most poweful small CUVs there is (RWD goes 0-60 in 5.8) , and it does so while getting decent MPG (ave 20-21 here in mixed driving), but it doesn't get you anywhere near what a base mini-cooper would get you or what a motorcycle will get you.



If we are comparing vehicle size, yes - they are comparable...as are many many vehicles.
If we are comparing luxury, I am sure there are positives that one has which exceed the other, and vice versa.
If we are comparing handling, are we talking about hard cornering, rough roads, high-speed highway driving, etc...

The CT 200 should be compared to other high MPG and low power offerings. VW turbo-diesels, Hyundai Veloster, Honda hybrids - etc.

I think we should be comparing our EX35 to offerings such as the new BMW X3, Audi A3 and Q3, etc. I think it does quite well stacked against those.

[ANBYOND]

Honestly - these two puppies are in completely different categories, so I am not sure why they are still being compared?

Yes, the hybrid has much better MPG at the expense of much less performance. (10+ seconds 0-60)
Yes, the EX35 is one of the most poweful small CUVs there is (RWD goes 0-60 in 5.8) , and it does so while getting decent MPG (ave 20-21 here in mixed driving), but it doesn't get you anywhere near what a base mini-cooper would get you or what a motorcycle will get you.



If we are comparing vehicle size, yes - they are comparable...as are many many vehicles.
If we are comparing luxury, I am sure there are positives that one has which exceed the other, and vice versa.
If we are comparing handling, are we talking about hard cornering, rough roads, high-speed highway driving, etc...

The CT 200 should be compared to other high MPG and low power offerings. VW turbo-diesels, Hyundai Veloster, Honda hybrids - etc.

I think we should be comparing our EX35 to offerings such as the new BMW X3, Audi A3 and Q3, etc. I think it does quite well stacked against those.

Both vehicles are entry luxury class vehicles.

The only loss in performance on the CT vs the EX is acceleration. Skidpad, cornering, braking etc are very similar in fact the ct takes bends better, less leaning like the ex35 does in bends from its higher center of gravity. The ct is not 10+ seconds 0-60 its officially rated at 9.8 Seconds. Many locations 5.8 seconds is useless. Esp,city driving.

Everyones driving is diff, i only got a max of 16 to 18mpg in mixed driving on my ex awd. Straight stop and go city driving. Maybe 14 or 15 mpg. Highway best of about 24 in a long 100+ mile highway trip

Disagreed the ct cant be compared to the veloster, honda hybrids its much nicer quality and more refined and a luxury brand. Sit in those cars and tell me if you think they can be compared. I have. Their interiors arent even close.

As for the x3 etc since they were redone they all have more refined engines, much more cargo room and better gas mileage than the ex. even the all new rdx with v6 gets 3 or 4 mpg better epa rating than ex.

One of the negatives of the ex is that its V6 (esp the 3.7l in G37)isnt the most refined and it sucks gas like a V8 engine.

Im done here. Have a great day.

[XIS]

I do 0-60 several times daily...here in the 6th largest city in the US. I would take the EX engine over the 3.0 BMW engine. It just out performs it. I am not comparing the turbo because Nissan isn't sporting one of those in the EX yet.

I haven't said negatives about the CT.. I just dont think the two are anything similar. We hear you that you traded your EX in, that you got bad MPG and that you don't care about performance as much as you do about MPG. Understood. You got something in the class of vehicle that better fit you.

Myself, I wouldn't make that trade for my EX...but that is just me. Like I said, that might be something my wife would be interested in and if she didn't need the room, I would consider trading her RX in for it.


Just to clarify a few things:
from motortrend:

Scouring Motor Trend's extensive test data, we found just one 2011 model year vehicle that's slower from 0-60 mph than the 2011 Lexus CT 200h - a four-cylinder all-wheel-drive Hyundai Santa Fe GLS. If all you want in an entry-level premium hatchback is highway on-ramp quickness, and you are repulsed by the CT 200h's 10.1-second 0-60 mph time, go get an Audi A3. The Lexus CT 200h is for drivers who appreciate a car that finds a meaningful compromise between speed and efficiency, but leans toward the latter...


The CT 200h performance picture doesn't improve when you look at Motor Trend's figure eight. The 2010 Prius with 17-inch alloy wheels finished it in 28.7 seconds at 0.55 g, compared to the Lexus CT 200h's 28.4 seconds at 0.59 g

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alt ... z1rfQ76joZ


EX35
MT figure eight 27.6 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)

Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/oftheyear/suv ... z1rfV7YFl1

[ANBYOND]

I do 0-60 several times daily...here in the 6th largest city in the US. I would take the EX engine over the 3.0 BMW engine. It just out performs it. I am not comparing the turbo because Nissan isn't sporting one of those in the EX yet.

I haven't said negatives about the CT.. I just dont think the two are anything similar. We hear you that you traded your EX in, that you got bad MPG and that you don't care about performance as much as you do about MPG. Understood. You got something in the class of vehicle that better fit you.

Myself, I wouldn't make that trade for my EX...but that is just me. Like I said, that might be something my wife would be interested in and if she didn't need the room, I would consider trading her RX in for it.


Just to clarify a few things:
from motortrend:

Scouring Motor Trend's extensive test data, we found just one 2011 model year vehicle that's slower from 0-60 mph than the 2011 Lexus CT 200h - a four-cylinder all-wheel-drive Hyundai Santa Fe GLS. If all you want in an entry-level premium hatchback is highway on-ramp quickness, and you are repulsed by the CT 200h's 10.1-second 0-60 mph time, go get an Audi A3. The Lexus CT 200h is for drivers who appreciate a car that finds a meaningful compromise between speed and efficiency, but leans toward the latter...


The CT 200h performance picture doesn't improve when you look at Motor Trend's figure eight. The 2010 Prius with 17-inch alloy wheels finished it in 28.7 seconds at 0.55 g, compared to the Lexus CT 200h's 28.4 seconds at 0.59 g

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alt ... z1rfQ76joZ


EX35
MT figure eight 27.6 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)

Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/oftheyear/suv ... z1rfV7YFl1

I don't do 0-60, diff priorities, I live in the biggest city in the US, lucky to be able to do 0-30, LOL! For me using premium gas to only get 15mpg was getting old. I much prefer regular gas and 45+ mpg. I test drove the Prius, the CT200h handles/drives far better/sportier and takes roads bumps better.
I find it pretty impressive that the CT200h did as close to the EX35 as it did in the MT Figure eight despite having far less power. 28.4 vs 27.6 is pretty close for a 134hp vs nearly 300hp vehicle.
As I drive both vehicles a lot, the CT200h has better/sporty feel in corners vs my EX, I don't care what the numbers show. The numbers show the CT200h does nearly same other than acceleration.

Since you are only paraphrasing select quotes from that Motortrend review, I will do the same

Just to clarify a few things:
from motortrend:

Your opinion on Lexus' new entry-level vehicle will depend on your priorities. A BMW 1 Series or Audi A3 hatchback might provide more driving enjoyment, but the Lexus combines reasonably sporty responsiveness with unsurpassed fuel economy. Bottom line: Efficiency-seeking commuters who spend most of their time in heavy traffic will be better served by the Lexus. From behind the wide-grip steering wheel, the CT 200h feels far more satisfying than a Toyota Prius. While the Lexus isn't meant for those who drive at nine-tenths of the car's abilities, spirited backroad driving is fun if you're in Sport mode. for now, Lexus has a decent entry-level model with green credentials to challenge the Audi A3 TDI. Even with a 10.1 second 0-60 mph time.

As for performance, other than acceleration...the skidpad, braking from 60mph to 0 and slalom speeds are very close between the 2 vehicles. You can see these numbers from various tests..
CT200h 63mph slalom vs EX 64mph
CT200h 120 feet vs EX35 118 feet, some tests have both at identical 123 feet
CT200h ski pad of .86g vs EX .83g

In other words, you are correct, there is nothing else to compare. Good Luck.

[ANBYOND]

41% is not most anything over 50% would be most & the Prius has the best retention.

You do realize the EX35 has a retention rate of under 40%... LOL! I believe its only around 30%. Most don't re-buy it. The competition has gotten much better since 2008.

X3 is bigger/roomier than EX35 and more refined, esp the engine and slightly better gas mileage. The X3 6cyl is 19/25 vs EX 17/24.

In terms of fuel economy, Infiniti dropped the ball with the 7spd auto in 2011 on the EX. It only raised the EPA gas mileage by 1 mpg vs the 5spd.. lol! They should have gotten at least 2 or 3 mpg with 2 extra gears.

[minimo3]

Infiniti could have improved the mileage by an additional 1-2 mpgs with the 7-speed but that would have entailed sacrifices, for example they could have programmed the transmission to to upshift earlier, to NOT hold a lower gear when cornering, to NOT have rev matched downshifting. Fuel economy would have improved but at the expense of driving enjoyment. This is the crux of the debate I believe: what people buy the EX for. I think I can safely say no one bought it for its stellar fuel economy. Instead we bought it because it looks nice, drives well, has lots of power, and is an amazing value for money. Sure the X3 gets slightly better gas mileage but when I was shopping the difference in price was about $13,000 equivalently configured. Even a fairly bare bones IS 250AWD we looked at cost $4k more than a EX35 Journey AWD. From a fuel economy perspective, the X3 is a bit of an outlier as well, a quick glance at competitors' 2012 6-cyclinder powered AWD CUVs indicates that the EX's fuel economy is generally on-par with the market in general (Audi Q5, Volvo XC60, Acura RDX, Ford Edge, Jeep Liberty, Mazda CX-7, Subaru Tribeca, Lexus RX350). The EX is our "fun car" just like the GTO is your fun car. Let us enjoy that! :-)

[XIS]

Damn.. Thought he was 'done here'... He doesn't need to "let us" enjoy it. He can't stop us from loving it.

Your bottom line is saving on gas. My bottom line is a much more exciting driving experience, leaving posers in the rear-view mirror all while doing it in a nicer looking vehicle with ABUNDANT power and still getting 20+ MPG.

My EX would EAT an X3 alive all while looking much much better. X3 is hardly more refined. HA! It is very long in the tooth... The EX would just embarras a Prius or CT200. Not worth comparing... Again, compare that to the other 100hp vehicles and bicycles... Hell, the damn CT doesn'[t even have gears. CVT.. again, perfect for the ladies.

CT 200 is great for the folks that don't have the need for power or speed and need to save on gas....

[TomT]

Damn.. Thought he was 'done here'... He doesn't need to "let us" enjoy it. He can't stop us from loving it.

Your bottom line is saving on gas. My bottom line is a much more exciting driving experience, leaving posers in the rear-view mirror all while doing it in a nicer looking vehicle with ABUNDANT power and still getting 20+ MPG.

My EX would EAT an X3 alive all while looking much much better. X3 is hardly more refined. HA! It is very long in the tooth... The EX would just embarras a Prius or CT200. Not worth comparing... Again, compare that to the other 100hp vehicles and bicycles... Hell, the damn CT doesn'[t even have gears. CVT.. again, perfect for the ladies.

CT 200 is great for the folks that don't have the need for power or speed and need to save on gas....

I agree. It's all about priorities. I wasn't looking for a vehicle with good gas mileage when I bought my EX. I wanted something that was fun and I am still happy with my decision. Besides I live in Texas where every other vehicle is a big truck or SUV that would kill to get the EX's gas mileage.

[DDS]

The CT and the EX are in different classes. The CT is a a foot shorter, 2 inches narrower, 6" lower and 800 lbs lighter. I understand your concern over the poor gas mileage, and I have heard rumblings some EX's develop issues with reliability. But I will bet the condo you don't keep the CT very long unless you yourself are short, thin, your wife is petite and you have no children or very young children, because there is simply no more room in the back seat of the CT than there was in the EX - and much much less in the front. It is a very handsome automobile, it will likely be very reliable and you will get the EPA mileage but you have to fit into it before you can appreciate it. I went into Lexus also looking for a CT inspired by the design and the price, but was taken back at the diminutive size as I walked up to it in the showroom. I didn't even take a test drive after I had a difficult time getting in and climbing out. Of course you have to fit into an EX also meaning you really must see it as a large two seat sports car, not a family hauler. It is the form factor that makes the EX. A beautiful heavy full size luxury sports car with great acceleration. The EX has a power to weight ratio of 13.5! The CT has a power to weight ratio of 23.5. In my book that puts it in the category of a dog. Fully loaded a sick dog.

[EX-KAT-35]

Just heard a report on the radio that fewer than 35% ??? (I was multitasking... ) of hybrid owners buy another hybrid. They stay with the same brand but go with a regular gas car.

Additionally the handling differences will exist bcs of the chassis dynamics of a front-wheel vs rear-wheel drive biased platforms... Apples & Oranges.

[Tasman]

ANBYOND is obviously a troll otherwise he would be posting and following a group more associated to his purchase and not trying to convince EX owners what a great decision he made and how stupid we are for loving the EX.

[ANBYOND]

The CT and the EX are in different classes. The CT is a a foot shorter, 2 inches narrower, 6" lower and 800 lbs lighter. I understand your concern over the poor gas mileage, and I have heard rumblings some EX's develop issues with reliability. But I will bet the condo you don't keep the CT very long unless you yourself are short, thin, your wife is petite and you have no children or very young children, because there is simply no more room in the back seat of the CT than there was in the EX - and much much less in the front. It is a very handsome automobile, it will likely be very reliable and you will get the EPA mileage but you have to fit into it before you can appreciate it. I went into Lexus also looking for a CT inspired by the design and the price, but was taken back at the diminutive size as I walked up to it in the showroom. I didn't even take a test drive after I had a difficult time getting in and climbing out. Of course you have to fit into an EX also meaning you really must see it as a large two seat sports car, not a family hauler. It is the form factor that makes the EX. A beautiful heavy full size luxury sports car with great acceleration. The EX has a power to weight ratio of 13.5! The CT has a power to weight ratio of 23.5. In my book that puts it in the category of a dog. Fully loaded a sick dog.

Yes, I had a lot of reliability issues (luckily mostly minor a few major , like needing a new radiator when it was 1 week new, LOL!) constant oil and coolant leaks since and sometimes it won't start, multiple dealers can't diagnose the issues, it doesn't happen when they hold it overnight.

Facts...the CT has 4 inches MORE legroom in the rear than the EX. 32.5 inches vs 28.5 inches. You can google the specifications yourself. Ground clearance is about the same 5.7 inches on both vehicles. Most of the people that in person that complain about the EX or CT lack of room are usually obese/out of shape or very big. I keep fit and have no problem at all getting in or out of the CT, no dif than EX.

Yes, the EX has far better acceleration, no doubts, but it's all in what you are used to. but with that comes having to use premium gas and getting the gas mileage that is same or worse than a V8. If you enjoy 15mpg in stop and go driving, then great.

Dog? You must be referring to the EX body roll in the twisties.. It may have decent accelration, but too bad the handling/braking don't match. Brake feel is pretty bad on the EX, esp after you get out of a G37 or CT

[ANBYOND]

ANBYOND is obviously a troll otherwise he would be posting and following a group more associated to his purchase and not trying to convince EX owners what a great decision he made and how stupid we are for loving the EX.

Sorry Tasman, I'm not a troll. I loved my EX, it's a nice vehicle, I like the new ride better.

[ANBYOND]

Damn.. Thought he was 'done here'... He doesn't need to "let us" enjoy it. He can't stop us from loving it.

Your bottom line is saving on gas. My bottom line is a much more exciting driving experience, leaving posers in the rear-view mirror all while doing it in a nicer looking vehicle with ABUNDANT power and still getting 20+ MPG.

My EX would EAT an X3 alive all while looking much much better. X3 is hardly more refined. HA! It is very long in the tooth... The EX would just embarras a Prius or CT200. Not worth comparing... Again, compare that to the other 100hp vehicles and bicycles... Hell, the damn CT doesn'[t even have gears. CVT.. again, perfect for the ladies.

CT 200 is great for the folks that don't have the need for power or speed and need to save on gas....

You are correct on the old X3.. the EX was better in most facets. However the new redesigned X3 that came out recently is better than EX35.