Members of the UK motoring press were recently invited to test-drive the newly announced Lexus RZ 300e – the latest addition to the RZ luxury SUV line-up. You can read what they said in our Lexus RZ 300e review article below.
Lexus RZ 300e reviews
Auto Express: 4/5
“The Lexus RZ 300e makes… sense with the added efficiency that comes from the loss of a motor. Interior quality and design are still excellent, and for some, the RZ will be worth a look based on the cabin alone. Combine that with a driving experience that sensibly targets comfort, plus loads of rear passenger and boot space, and the RZ looks like an appealing package.”
EV Powered
“The RZ is exactly what you’d expect from an electric Lexus. It’s smooth, super-refined and beautifully engineered, but a little lacking in the dynamic stakes. It’s also spacious, packed with well-considered technology and keenly priced as a leftfield alternative to European options. The two-wheel-drive 300e… brings better efficiency and range, plus a more accessible price for those who don’t need the full-on performance of the all-wheel-drive.”
London Reviews
“Anyone who thinks the Lexus RZ 300e sounds a little too relaxed for their requirements should head toward the twin motor, all-wheel drive Lexus RZ 450e, which is rather more potent. However, if you’re more interested in the same levels of premium-rated interior comfort without the urgency for getting from A to B, the Lexus RZ 300e makes total sense. It’s got plenty of room for the average family but is perfectly suited to couples and their suitcases too. I [also] like the restrained looks, which are upmarket but not in-your-face.”
The Scotsman: 3/5
“With a lower barrier to entry in terms of cost and an improved range figure, the RZ 300e makes sense as a premium alternative to the various all-electric models around the fifty thousand pound mark. Those enticed by the Lexus badge over European or South Korean alternatives will find the great looks, impressive levels of comfort, space and refinement are all there in the RZ 300e and, in terms of cost and range, less is more.”
All information was correct at the time of publishing.
