Did the Lexus EV Sports Car Die So the 'LFR' Could Live?
spy photos and renderings
of both the upcoming road and racing versions. This new car—which we and others have been calling the LFR—owes a lot to the LC and LFA, sure, but also the Electrified Sports concept from 2021.
But this new car will have gas power. So what happened to the EV?
The Lexus Electrified Sport debuted in December 2021, when Toyota unveiled
a number of EV concepts
. Its long-hood, short-deck proportions scream front-engine rear-drive sports car, but Lexus said that this was a pure EV, with solid-state batteries promising a 435-mile range and a sub-2-second 0-60 mph sprint.
Since 2021, however, popular sentiment around electric cars has shifted. Their growth has slowed, and many automakers—
Toyota included
—have scaled back their EV ambitions.
Photo by: Lexus
Photo by: Brian Silvestro / Motor1
Back then, Lexus did say it would build an EV sports car. Akio Toyoda himself said, "Lexus will develop a next-generation battery EV sports car that inherits the driving taste, or the secret sauce, of the performance cultivated via the development of the LFA.'
As of now, the company hasn't said whether it's cancelled this project entirely. But there's no doubt that the new Sports Concept uses many of the same design cues as the 2021 EV.
The overall proportions are the same, but Lexus carried specific details forward, too: The largely open front intake with a split in the center; the LFA aping C-pillar and cutaways in the rear bodywork; the full-width light bar at the back; the cutaways in the hood; the double-bubble roof; and more.
The two cars are not identical, but they are very much cut from the same cloth.
27
Source: Brian Silvestro / Motor1
We know that this new Lexus concept previews a production car that will have a Toyota twin. In 2022, Toyota debuted
the GR GT3 concept
, a low-slung, front-engine, rear-drive race-car design that very much has an engine up front (likely, a twin-turbo V-8). An official
confirmed a road-going Lexus version of the car in 2022
, with the Lexus version expected for the US, and the Toyota version hitting other markets.
A Lexus spokesperson declined to comment on what, if any, relationship the two concepts have. If you'll allow us a bit of speculation, it's not hard to imagine Toyota cancelling a Lexus EV sports car, since there doesn't seem to be a market for such a thing.
But with the Electrified Sports concept, Lexus at least had a good design basis for the internal-combustion sports car that will eventually come. Plus, there's a possibility the production road car could be a hybrid of some sort to compete with new, electrified offerings from AMG, Porsche, and Corvette.
But for now, at least, it appears an all-electric Lexus sports car will have to wait.
More on the 'LFR'
The Lexus LFR Isn't an LFA Successor. It's Better
'Fantastic Car:' Formula 1 Driver Praises the Lexus LFR
Lexus LFR Supercar Shows Its Interior for the First Time. It Looks Gorgeous
This Is the New Lexus Supercar Concept—And It Looks Spectacular
Stay informed with our newsletter every weekday
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Share this Story
X
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional deal with Nvidia and AMD, explained: Alexander Hamilton would approve
'We negotiated a little deal,' President Donald Trump told reporters on August 11, about the developing situation with leading chip makers Nvidia and AMD continuing to do business in China. He explained that he originally wanted a 20% cut of Nvidia's sales in exchange for the company obtaining export licenses to sell H20 chip to China, but he was persuaded to settle at 15%. The H20 chip is 'obsolete,' Trump added … 'he's selling a essentially old chip.' The chips do appear to be quite significant to China, considering that the Cyberspace Administration of China held discussions with Nvidia over security concerns that the H20 chips may be tracked and turned off remotely, according to a disclosure on its website. The deal, which lifted an export ban on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and followed heated negotiations, was widely described as unusual and also still theoretical at this point, with the legal details still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. Legal experts have questioned whether the eventual deal would constitute an unconstitutional export tax, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports. This has come to be known as the 'export clause' of the constitution. Indeed, it's hard to find much precedent for it anywhere in the history of the U.S. government's dealings with the corporate sector. Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied the history of the export clause, told Fortune he was not aware of anything like this in history. In the 1990s, he added, the Supreme Court struck down two attempted taxes on export clause grounds (cases known as IBM and U.S. Shoe). Jensen said tax practitioners were surprised that the court took up the cases: 'if only because most pay no attention to constitutional limitations, and the Court hadn't heard any export clause cases in about 70 years.' The takeaway was clear, Jensen said: 'The export clause matters.' Columbia University professor Eric Talley agreed with Jensen, telling Fortune that while the federal government has previously applied subsidies to exports, he's not aware of other historical cases imposing taxes on selected exporters. Talley also cited the export clause as the usual grounds for finding such arrangements unconstitutional. Rather than downplaying the uniqueness of the arrangement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been leaning into it. In a Bloomberg television interview, he said: 'I think you know, right now, this is unique. But now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it? I think we could see it in other industries over time.' Bessent and the White House insist there are 'no national security concerns,' since only less-advanced chips are being sold to China. Instead, officials have touted the deal as a creative solution to balance trade, technology, and national policy. How rare is this? The arrangement has drawn sharp reaction from business leaders, legal experts, and trade analysts. Julia Powles, director of UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, told the Los Angeles Times: 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration, which is quite rare.' Experts warned that if replicated, this template could pressure other firms—not just tech giants—into similar arrangements with the government. Already, several unprecedented arrangements have been struck between the Trump administration and the corporate sector, ranging from the 'golden share' in U.S. Steel negotiated as part of its takeover by Japan's Nippon Steel to the federal government reportedly discussing buying a stake in chipmaker Intel. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment on specifics. When contacted by Fortune for comment, Nvidia reiterated its statement that it follows rules the U.S. government sets for its participation in worldwide markets. 'While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide. America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' The White House declined to comment about the potential deal. AMD did not respond to a request for comment. While Washington has often intervened in business—especially in times of crisis—the mechanism and magnitude of the Nvidia/AMD deal are virtually unprecedented in recent history. The federal government appears to have never previously claimed a percentage of corporate revenue from export sales as a precondition for market access. Instead, previous actions took the form of temporary nationalization, regulatory control, subsidies, or bailouts—often during war or economic emergency. Examples of this include the seizure of coal mines (1946) and steel mills (1952) during labor strikes, as well as the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, where the government took equity stakes in large corporations including two of Detroit's Big three and most of Wall Street's key banks. During World War I, the War Industries Board regulated prices, production, and business conduct for the war effort. Congress has previously created export incentives and tax-deferral strategies (such as the Domestic International Sales Corporation and Foreign Sales Corporation Acts), but these measures incentivized sales rather than directly diverting a fixed share of export revenue to the government. Legal scholars stress that such arrangements were subjected to global trade rules and later modified after international complaints. Global lack of precedent The U.S. prohibition on export taxes dates back to the birth of the nation. Case Western's Jensen has written that some delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such as New York's Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of the government being able to tax revenue sources such as imports and exports, but the 'staple states' in the southern U.S. were fiercely opposed, given their agricultural bent, especially the importance of cotton at that point. Still, many other countries currently have export taxes on the books, though they are generally imposed across all exporters, rather than as one-off arrangements that remove barriers to a specific market. And many of the nations with export taxes are developing countries who tax agricultural or resource commodities. In several cases (Uganda, Malaya, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti, Thailand), export taxes made up 10% to 40% of total government tax revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, according to an IMF staff paper. Globally, most countries tax profits generated within their borders ('source-based corporate taxes'), but rarely as a direct percentage of export sales as a market access precondition. The standard model is taxation of locally earned profits, regardless of export destination; licensing fees and tariffs may be applied, but not usually as a fixed percent of export revenue as a pre-negotiated entry fee. Although the Nvidia/AMD deal doesn't take the usual form of a tax, Case Western's Jensen added. 'I don't see what else it could be characterized as.' It's clearly not a 'user fee,' which he said is the usual triable issue of law in export clause cases. For instance, if goods or services are being provided by the government in exchange for the charge, such as docking fees at a governmentally operated port, then that charge isn't a tax or duty and the Export Clause is irrelevant. 'I just don't see how the charges that will be levied in the chip cases could possibly be characterized in that way.' Players have been known to 'game' the different legal treatments of subsidies and taxes, Columbia's Talley added. He cited the example of a government imposing a uniform, across-the-board tax on all producers, but then providing a subsidy to sellers who sell to domestic markets. 'The net effect would be the same as a tax on exports, but indirectly.' He was unaware of this happening in the U.S. but cited several international examples including Argentina, India, and even the EU. One famous example of a canny international tax strategy was Apple's domicile in Ireland, along with so many other multinationals keeping their international profits offshore in affiliates in order to avoid paying U.S. tax, which at the time applied to all worldwide income upon repatriation. Talley said much of this went away after the 2018 tax reforms, which moved the U.S. away from a worldwide corporate tax, with some exceptions. The protection racket comparison If Trump's chip export tax is an anomaly in the annals of U.S. international trade, the deal structure has some parallels in another corner of the business world: organized crime, where 'protection rackets' have a long history. Businesses bound by such deals must pay a cut of their revenues to a criminal organization (or parallel government), effectively as the cost for being allowed to operate or to avoid harm. The China chip export tax and the protection rackets extract revenue as a condition for market access, use the threat of exclusion or punishment for non-payment, and both may be justified as 'protection' or 'guaranteed access,' but are not freely negotiated by the business. 'It certainly has the smell of a governmental shakedown in certain respects,' Columbia's Talley told Fortune, considering that the 'underlying threat was an outright export ban, which makes a 15% surcharge seem palatable by comparison.' Talley noted some nuances, such as the generally established broad statutory and constitutional support for national-security-based export bans on various goods and services sold to enumerated countries, which have been imposed with legal authority on China, North Korea, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, and others. 'From an economic perspective, a ban on an exported good is tantamount to a tax of 'infinity percent' on the good,' Talley said, meaning it effectively shuts down the export market for that good. 'Viewed in that light, a 15% levy is less (and not more) extreme than a ban.' Still, there's the matter, similar to Trump's tariff regime, of making a legal challenge to an ostensibly blatantly illegal policy actually hold up in court. 'A serious question with the chips tax,' Case Western's Jensen told Fortune, 'is who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge the tax?' In other words, it may be unconstitutional, but who's actually going to compel the federal government to obey the constitution? This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
From Orbit To Oval Inside The Space Force One Race NASCAR Mission
At Dover Motor Speedway in July, fans saw a futuristic paint scheme scattered among the field. It was one very similar to an earlier livery tied to Star Wars and being raced on a Toyota driven by Bubba Wallace who had also raced that Star Wars themed car last year. But this most recent livery paid homage not to something from science fiction, but science fact. This paint scheme featured Leidos and, more curiously, the U.S. Space Force. Yes, that Space Force, the youngest branch of the military that most Americans still think is either a Steve Carell sitcom or a punchline involving aliens and weather balloons. But make no mistake: the Guardians, as members of the Space Force are called, are very real, and their mission is as vital as it is misunderstood. Which, as it turns out, is exactly why they showed up at NASCAR's Monster Mile in the first place. You see Leidos wasn't just slapping the Space Force logo on a racecar for the sake of shiny paint. As Gregory Pejic, VP and Space Account Manager for Leidos, explained, the goal was to connect the public with the very real, everyday impact of space-based capabilities, things like secure communications, GPS navigation, and homeland defense. In NASCAR, those same satellite systems quietly enhance the sport itself, from driver safety and performance analytics to communications and live broadcasting. In other words, the tech that keeps America safe also keeps NASCAR running at full speed. 'If you think about the true purpose about why we're doing this,' Pejic said. 'The goal is to raise awareness to build appreciation for this critical work happening above, and to show how that type of innovation translates directly and the benefits here on Earth.' In 2022, as part of a U.S. Air Force sponsorship with the now-defunct Petty GMS Racing, the Space Force logo wasn't just a decal—it covered Ty Dillon's entire Chevrolet in a full Space Force paint scheme. By contrast, Dover marked a different kind of debut. This time the logo appeared as part of a broader Leidos sponsorship on Bubba Wallace's Toyota, giving the Space Force visibility within a partnership rather than as the primary branding. For Lt. Col. Brian Dea, Executive Officer to the Chief Operations Officer of the U.S. Space Force, it was still 'a world-class opportunity to bring the existence of the Space Force—and really what we do—to a fantastic audience.' Dea, who attended the Dover race with a group of Guardians, said the fan response was immediate. 'You saw this tremendous sense of gratitude,' he said. 'People were humbled, gracious, and glad we were there. Handshakes, hugs—if we'd stayed longer maybe even a kiss or two. The NASCAR fan base is really a beautiful slice of the American public.' What struck Dea was not only the warm welcome, but also the parallels between the sport and the Space Force mission. 'NASCAR fans are into how the car is set up, how it's running—the technical aspects of speed, precision, and accuracy. That aligns directly with what the Space Force does in space operations,' he said. 'I was standing behind the crew chief as they were communicating with the driver and analyzing the car turn by turn. Well, that's what we do in space operations too. It requires tremendous precision, care, and engineering to make those systems operate, sustain them, and then use them when needed.' For fans who asked what the Space Force actually does, Dea often pointed to the one thing everyone uses: GPS. 'Most Americans interact with the Space Force every single day, even if they don't realize it,' he said. 'Banking transactions, cell phone navigation, even getting to and from work—none of that happens without GPS. And GPS is a Space Force mission.' He added that fans connected quickly when examples became more concrete. 'Think about Operation Midnight Hammer (when bombers flew out of Whiteman Air Force Base and struck targets across the globe with pinpoint accuracy). Every part of that—intelligence, warning, communications, navigation—was enabled by space operations and specifically the Space Force. We couldn't do those missions, or bring those crews home safely, without it.' At Dover, those explanations landed. 'When you put the Space Force mission in terms of everyday life, people get it,' Dea said. 'They understand what we do is incredibly real and incredibly important. The response from fans was warm, gracious, and full of gratitude.' Still, Dea acknowledged the impact of their NASCAR visit won't be measured overnight. But that's okay, just like the 2022 appearance, it's really just part of a larger effort. 'Time will tell how successful it was,' he said. 'This isn't going to be one event where suddenly everyone understands the Space Force. It's another step in the chain. But the American public has a vested interest in understanding what their sons and daughters do and why it matters. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, Guardians are on watch—facilitating and protecting critical space services.' And he emphasized, those services are not guaranteed forever. 'Adversarial nations have tested and fielded capabilities designed to deny America's use of space,' Dea said. 'That's why the Space Force was created—not just to keep doing what's been done before, but to have a dedicated service with dedicated personnel to defend those capabilities.' So, will the Space Force return to NASCAR? Dea hopes so. 'I'd like to believe we'll continue to look for opportunities like this,' he said. 'It's not just about putting information out—it's about putting Guardians out there too. When fans who are passionate about racing meet Guardians who are passionate about what they do, that connection resonates. It gives Guardians a sense of appreciation they bring back to the force. Events like Dover are just one step, but I'd like to see us do more.' While in 2022, the Space Force made a splash in NASCAR with Ty Dillon's Chevrolet under an Air Force sponsorship, Dover was different. Instead of being the headline sponsor, the Space Force was part of a broader Leidos partnership, and the purpose wasn't simply visibility—it was understanding. In the end, it was less about Bubba Wallace's lap times, or where he finished (seventh for the record) but more about the continuing effort to close the gap between 'Space Force' as a punchline and Space Force as a 24/7 mission that keeps America's most essential systems online. Dover gave them a loud, patriotic, slightly beer-scented classroom in which to make their case. Because whether you're piloting a $200 million satellite or a 3,400-pound stock car, the equation is the same—precision, speed, and absolute reliability. One operates in a vacuum, the other in 120-degree heat with 39 other drivers trying to shove you into a wall. Both, however, are unapologetically American. For Dea, that parallel is exactly the point. 'The space domain is incredibly contested,' he said. 'Supremacy in space today is not guaranteed tomorrow. What ensures we maintain that advantage is the United States Space Force—and America's Guardians—on watch, on call, and ready to execute this mission and protect it.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
NASCAR Rumors: Kaden Honeycutt Replacing Corey Heim in Truck Series Next Season
The NASCAR silly season for the Cup Series has been very quiet this year, with a majority of the drivers either already under contract or signing extensions earlier this year. However, the Truck Series is delivering a lot of movement, including a potential shakeup involving Corey Heim and Kaden Honeycutt. On Tuesday's episode of the Door, Bumper, Clear podcast, host and spotter Freddie Kraft said that Honeycutt is signing with Toyota and it's obvious that he'll be driving the No. 11 for Tricon Garage next season. 'He (Honeycutt) is leaving Niece Motorsports. He is signing with a Toyota team. You can probably put two and two together that he's going to be the one to replace Heim in the 11.' Freddie Kraft on Kaden Honeycutt's Truck Series team in 2026 Related: Kaden Honeycutt stats (): 525 points, two top 5s, nine top 10s, 11.6 average starting position, 14.4 average finishing position, 44 laps led in 17 races On Aug. 4, Niece announced that it was parting ways with Honeycutt just weeks before the Truck Series playoffs. The move was made, per Bob Pockrass, because Honeycutt signed a deal to race for a new manufacturer in 2026. Fortunately for Honeycutt, he found a short-term stop to continue his pursuit of a Truck championship. The Stewart Friesen injury opened up a spot in the No. 52 car and Honeycutt was brought in as a substitute driver for the remainder of the season. Read More: Honeycutt is now poised to join Tricon/Toyota next season, taking over the No. 11 truck driven by Heim. It's a great opportunity for the 22-year-old, joining a No. 11 team that has the highest average starting position (4.9) and the most poles (seven) in the Truck Series this season. Where will Corey Heim race in 2026? Heim's landing spot in 2026 is unclear. The Daily Downloads claimed on Monday that Spire Motorsports has made a 'significant push' to get Heim for the No. 7 car in the Cup Series next season. The current driver of the No. 7, Justin Haley, is reportedly on the hot seat and Heim is the best driver among very limited options this offseason. While Heim is a development driver for 23XI Racing, a Toyota-backed team, there's no car available to him right now at the Cup level. Tyler Reddick and Bubba Wallace are under contract and, as an unchartered team in a legal battle with NASCAR that is costing tens of millions of dollars, 23XI Racing can't afford to lose the financial backing that Riley Herbst brings. Read More: One alternative for both Heim and 23XI Racing could be to work something out with Legacy Motor Club, which is trying to secure a third charter in 2026, one way or another. Heim has driven part-time for LMC in the past and could be an option if one of their pursuits works out. 23XI could also try and find a way to move Heim into the Xfinity series, but even a part-time role in Xfinity and Cup with a Toyota team might not be enough if another team is willing to offer him a full-time Cup ride next season. Related Headlines Latest Anthony Richardson Development 'Isn't a Great Sign' Patriots veteran with 60 career starts named surprise cut candidate History Suggests Marvin Harrison Jr's Set to Explode in 2025
