Come On Now: Do You Really Trust Consumer Reports After Black Listing The Lexus GX460?

Come On Now: Do You Really Trust Consumer Reports After Black Listing The Lexus GX460?
Let me go on record and be the first to say I am no fan of Toyota.  With that being said I will be the first to say I also feel that to a large degree that lately  they are also being treated unfairly in the press as well. Yes, we have posted our fair share of scathing posts concerning Toyota over the years, but when it comes down to it, we also harbor a respect for the Japanese automaker as well.

I guess you can call it a love, hate relationship if you want.  Although they represent many things we loathe about companies that have generic appeal. However, you have to admit that they got to where they are for a reason.  To put it bluntly, over the years they have done a better job of delivering a better end product to the market, and by doing so they justly deserve to reap the rewards that came to them.

But were these rewards totally justified? It is becoming abundantly clear now that Toyota has had its issues, and has even engaged in cover up politics to preserve their image. To be honest this is what I would have expected from the Detroit three, but Toyota was always held in higher esteem.  So was it such a shocker to see that Toyota was “just” another automaker? Did you feel betrayed or justified?

The end effect in all of this has exceeded my widest dreams or nightmares.  Who could have imagined that the tables could have been turned so quickly on such a spotless reputation?  At the height of the crisis the media reporting became so bad that we actually stopped covering it altogether.  Yes the “Toyota Bashers” as we have been called, decided that it simply was not productive to simply rehash half truths and pure speculation in time of crisis.  To us it had gotten out of control.  Step back and take a breath people.

I’m not going to play the “we are better than them” card here, simply because we aren’t.  Yes we speculate just as anyone else does and will continue to do so.  But you need to look at all of the facts and make judgment for yourself. In these cases

The point of all of this is for you to take a look as the latest fiasco to hit the automaker the declaration by Consumer Reports that the Lexus GX460 is unsafe.

Wow, now that has a haunting ring now doesn’t it?  So much so that Lexus has stopped selling the vehicle simply based on what a magazine reported!  You know the editors at CR have to be patting themselves on the back this morning.  Talk about the little guy carrying some clout!

So what are the facts?  I have viewed the Consumer Reports video of the incident.  Yep the GX460 took a lazy slide sideways, however that could easily be said about a large number of SUV’s out there on the road.  Face it people it is a TRUCK, and by design, trucks don’t handle like sedans. You simply need to realize the limits and drive with in them.

Now Consumer Reports (CR) has an enviable reputation, but just like Toyota they simply are not above reproach.  My case in point, is that CR has a history of doing this before, and will probably do it again. I do however find it particularly interesting as to the timing of this declaration though.

To be blunt CR currently has a credibility issue.  They all too readily bought into the Toyota bandwagon, and for years threw their support behind name, not necessarily the individual products.  CR failed to read the writing on the wall for the last few years, and continued to blindly support all Toyota products even with mounting evidence to the contrary. 

The end result of this Pied Piper policy was to stop and reevaluate and take a step back, and finally change their original Toyota recommendations.  Make no mistake, this meant that millions of readers now have cause to question the entire CR vehicle rating process. A tough blow when you are the defacto standard of automotive ratings for many American consumers.

But what about the history CR of unsafe declarations?  If you look into it we see an interesting trend.

Starting in 1967 CR deemed the AMC Ambassador as unsafe for fuel spillage.  Eleven years later, the media was buzzing over their declaration that the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were rollover risks.  Ten years after that, the Suzuki the Samurai branded as a rollover risk as well.  The new century brought us the Mitsubishi Montero in 2001 as unfit to drive, and now the Lexus GX460 has been branded as unsafe.

Do you find it odd that these major declarations which garner mass media attention are occurring on ten to eleven year cycles?  Were we simply overdue for a regularly timed event?  Is CR trying to clean up their battered reputation by lashing out at the very source of their embarrassment?   Connect the dots if you will, but keep in mind,  this sort of activity has to boost CR’s circulation revenues substantially, so it isn’t like they have nothing to gain with these revelations.   

So who is the real victim here?  The consumer, the media, or Toyota?



Agent00RAgent00R - 4/14/2010 11:05:59 AM
+1 Boost
Great piece, 009!


Joe_LimonJoe_Limon - 4/14/2010 11:27:18 AM
+6 Boost
I know just how scary it is to go sideways at speed in icy situations. The stability control system is not working! The vehicle should selectively apply the brakes so as to prevent this thing from happening. I can only imagine how bad this thing would be on ice and snow spinning out while doing mild turns at speed.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 11:33:19 AM
+6 Boost
Software can only go so far in correcting Newtonian (Is that a word?) dynamics. I am not trying to take away from your concern, but no matter how hard we try I think it is impossible to correct for what stupid drivers do.


Joe_LimonJoe_Limon - 4/14/2010 11:47:37 AM
+2 Boost
I agree, software can't break the laws of physics, but as the people from consumer reports are reporting, the stability control doesn't activate until it is sideways. The problem isn't the fact that a Toyota made a vehicle with a high center of gravity, everyone makes those. The problem is that they failed to provide adequate safety systems. It's like having a car with airbags that deploy 2 seconds after you crash.


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 12:38:27 PM
0 Boost
009, seriously, the traction control isn't there to protect "stupid drivers". It's there to correct the path of the vehicle during a maneuver that causes the vehicle to break traction, regardless of what led up to it. Unfortunately, the computer can't differentiate if the vehicle is sliding because you're just driving like a jerk, or because you cut the wheel hard because a little kid/ dog/ deer ran out in front of you, or someone cut you off on the highway. The bottom line was that the traction control did not work as it should. Maybe proper traction control would not have totally prevented the slides, but it absolutely would have mitigated them.

Sure, no electronic aid can overcome the laws of physics. That's not the point. The fact is that the maneuvers that CD put the vehicle through should have caused an immediate response by the stability control, but the vehicle did not respond.

You can say they were driving like jerks or whatever, but I say they were duplicating potential real-life conditions, albeit extreme ones.

Your statement about consumers "facing the fact that trucks drive like trucks", and "you have to drive within the limits" is ignorant. I've driven the following vehicles, on controlled wet and dry tracks, and made every single one of them break traction and engage traction control, and not one of them failed like this Lexus: Porsche Cayenne, BMW X5, MB GL450, Audi Q7, Volvo XC90, previous GX470 (and I'm sure I'm leacing a couple others out). To say this can happen to any truck on the road is foolish. So sliding sideways is definitely not, to quote, something that "could easily be said by a large number of SUV’s out there on the road".

This is the most simple concept so try to follow: Traction control is supposed to intervene to correct the path of travel of an out-of-control vehicle REGARDLESS OF WHY IT'S SLIDING. Are you implying that SUV drivers should accept the fact that they cannot, under any circumstances, make an evasive move? That they should just come to terms with the fact that they will have to mow down anything in the road, dead, alive, animate, inanimate or otherwise?


LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 1:00:45 PM
+3 Boost
Traction control still has to abide by the laws of physics and cannot save you from every situation. If a driver entered into a turn way too fast. The traction control might stop the vehicle from sliding, but it wont stop the vehicle from hitting the gaurd-rail. The vehicle is somply traveling too fast.


I95SPEEDINGTICKETSI95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 4/14/2010 2:04:56 PM
+6 Boost
Cayenne, X5, GL, XC and Q7 are all NOT Body on Frame Truck Designs and have much Lower Centre of Gravity so will exhibit better Grip and Handling characteristics than the GX LX series which are Body On Frame Designs.


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 3:18:32 PM
+1 Boost
That's somewhat true, but competely irrelevant, statement. This has nothing to do with center of gravity. Rolling over is a product of high center of gravity, breaking traction is not. The exception being if the body roll due to high CofG forces one or more wheels off the ground, there will be obviously less traction, but that's not what happened here. You can get any of the superior handling SUVs I mentioned to slide just like the Lexus did. All you have to do is...

SHUT OFF THE STABILITY CONTROL.

Problem is, the Lexus does it with the stability conrtol still on.

Additionally, the center of gravity differences on all these vehicles, while different, is not different enough to result in dramatically different handling at the limits.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 11:40:47 AM
-1 Boost
Invisible- Did you even read this one? After weighing in all of the facts, I am siding with Lexus on this one.

IMHO it is utter BS and I hope Toyota will be vindicated.


enthusiastx11enthusiastx11 - 4/19/2010 12:16:19 PM
+1 Boost
badgewhore: can't believe you actually admitted the reality....toylex has influenced the media FOR YEARS with their massive ad spending. some of themedia frenzy directed at them right now is surely a release of years of pent up aggression for being manipulated. karma is a bitch.


I95SPEEDINGTICKETSI95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 4/14/2010 11:49:07 AM
+1 Boost
What I hope is that Toyota {Once Vindicated} Files an Almighty Lawsuit and Bankrupts CR.

The world would be a better place without these stupid companies.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 1:37:01 PM
+1 Boost
In a "perfect" World, Toyota would disprove the results in comparison to the rest of the market and then get with the NHTSA and have them verify the results.

This would either discredit CR (if warranted) or force them to do an update on the GX460 (if warranted). Either way the issue will be resolved.

I am not in favor of any single source (magazine or website) having so much influence over an automaker that they would shut down sales. This sets off big loud bells and flashing red light to me.


topneurotopneuro - 4/14/2010 11:50:14 AM
-4 Boost
I am ready for the 2010 Lexus GX460 sale and lease incentives.
That is how Toyota rebound sales after the Pedalgate bad press.
Training wheels will be included.



LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 11:53:11 AM
+2 Boost
I only trust Consumer Reports for Vaccumm cleaners or appliance reviews. And even then they rate price over actual performance. So the answer is no, I do not trust CR for any reviews.


LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 11:58:08 AM
+3 Boost
People are relying too heavily on traction control to save them, rather than good driving (to prevent the spin in the first place).


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 12:44:31 PM
-1 Boost
Dude, again, this is not about "good driving". I don't care how "good" you are, you're not good enough to cut the wheel to evade hitting a kid or animal on a wet public road, then sliding the vehicle 90 degrees sideways, and then correcting it's path without hitting a curb, guardrail or oncoming traffic, without electronics to intervene. It's not a conspiracy; the traction control just didn't work. If they hit a curb while sliding like that, the truck would have rolled. It didn't work. End of story.


LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 12:57:49 PM
+3 Boost
jpighetti,

Traction control cannot defeat the laws of physics. And cannot save the driver form every situation. If that kid jumped in front of a car, and the driver turned the wheel very fast, There isn't a traction control system in the world that would save that vehicle (if the conditions were slick). People need to rely on their own driving ability, rather than hoping that a traction control system will save them.

Traction control numbs the senses to the point where people don’t even know their own vehicles traction limits. I see people driving in the snow as if it were dry out. Reason? Because they think that the traction control will save them. Big Mistake.



LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 1:32:35 PM
+3 Boost
Instead of deboosting me, how about a valid counterpoint?


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 1:56:53 PM
+1 Boost
Right, I hear you that traction control is not magical. That's not the point. The point is that it didn't work at all. It's not about normal driving situations; it's about emergencies. What was a wet track in their test could be a snowy icy road, or a big patch of wet leaves, or loose sand that came off the back of a dump truck, whatever. These are conditions that can affect a vehicle that is being driven safely and properly. Though CD tested under controlled conditions, a similar (not same, similar) situation could come up when someone is driving safely and encounters an emergency. Someone is going the speed limit in light rain on the highway and a tractor trailer sweeps into their lane...then what? That's a perfect example of a real-life, every-day situation that was duplicated by the CD test. Traction control is a better driver than anyone on the road. There is no way that a driver can duplicate the braking effects of a stability control system. I don't care who you are or how good of a driver you are, you are safer in a vehicle with stability control. It will never, ever cause more harm than good. Period. It's not about being able to negotiate your way out of a slide. It's about preventing it from happening in the first place.


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 2:04:37 PM
+1 Boost
And your point of "If that kid jumped in front of a car, and the driver turned the wheel very fast, There isn't a traction control system in the world that would save that vehicle (if the conditions were slick)" is simply not true. Stability control can absolutely save the vehicle...to a point. Again, I've driven numerous SUVs and cars under controlled conditions, with stability control on and off. It is dramatically more difficult to get a vehicle out of control with the stability control on versus off. The threshold for the point when a vehicle is being driven so aggressively that the stability control has a true zero effect is extremely, extremely high. Even in the most extreme circumstances, it will still migitage the loss of control. Now, that might mean hitting the guardrail at 70 MPH instead of 80 MPH, but that's still better....


LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 3:23:48 PM
+2 Boost
Good Points. I'm in agreement.


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 4:53:23 PM
+1 Boost
Hey pal, if you don't like what I have to say then go f...oh, wait, that was a compliment! Well, thanks! Totally not used to that.


LexSucksLexSucks - 4/14/2010 5:25:09 PM
+2 Boost
Get used to it :)




kpaxxkpaxx - 4/14/2010 12:01:00 PM
0 Boost
Maybe Consumer Reports is trying to identify the fact that the GX460 has a poor implementation of traction control for the GX460. Who knows maybe toyota just cut and paste the traction control system from the corolla...and TADA it is inadequate for a vehicle with a higher center of gravity and more weight.

This just proves again that toyota is not good at engineering cars!


enthusiastx11enthusiastx11 - 4/14/2010 12:04:06 PM
+4 Boost
yes, they've only black listed TWO cars in the is decade: the 2001 mitsubishi montero and the 2010 lexus GX.

if they cried wolf all the time i wouldn't believe them. but TWICE in a decade... i believe them completely.


enthusiastx11enthusiastx11 - 4/14/2010 12:07:42 PM
+4 Boost
to further clarify, i totally trust consumer reports with regard to safety, reliability, functionality. i DO NOT trust their opinions of style, performance, fun-to-drive, etc.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 1:42:27 PM
+1 Boost
What are the odds of finding an unsafe vehicle like clock work every ten years on average? Once or twice seems reasonable. But 5 in 50 years all roughly 10 years apart? Maybe I need to set my calender out 10 years in advance and go to Vegas and place a bet on CR's "next" declaration.


AmericaAmerica - 4/14/2010 3:05:53 PM
+5 Boost
"like clock work every ten years on average"

That is hilarious! A clock that works on an average - brilliant! I can't stop laughing at ridiculousness of that statement. Thanks.




enthusiastx11enthusiastx11 - 4/15/2010 2:19:17 PM
+1 Boost
agent 009. your statement makes no sense. what are the odds of finding one every 3 years? every 56 minutes? every day?

what's your point? oh...and it's 9 years to be exact.


upwardsupwards - 4/14/2010 12:30:12 PM
+2 Boost
Given the fact that Toyota stopped selling this truck themselves along with Toyotas past quality issues I believe in consumer report this time.


uaw_laxuaw_lax - 4/14/2010 4:41:19 PM
+3 Boost
Agreed! If there was no problem then why would toyota stop selling the truck?


M35MTM35MT - 4/14/2010 12:37:56 PM
+3 Boost
What I dont understand is how they could sell one GX engineered back in 2002 that didnt have this problem, and then make a more advanced model that does? Makes no sense.


TCLATCLA - 4/14/2010 12:46:20 PM
+1 Boost
Yes, I agree the critisism by the press has been harsh, and made even worse by the people making false claims of unintended acceleration, but given that CR has only made this claim (or rating) once before gives them credibility in my book. I believe what they say is true. Yes, each large SUV has a higher risk of rollover. But for them to give the Lexus this rating, it must be a higher than average risk, and one that makes it unsafe in every day driving conditions. Know your limits is always good advice. But what if this SUV can't even be safe within normal driving conditions for any SUV?


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 1:50:10 PM
-1 Boost
Try 5 times in 50 years


TCLATCLA - 4/14/2010 2:45:53 PM
+2 Boost
Forgive me, he of great intelligence. Still a pretty good track record.


uaw_laxuaw_lax - 4/14/2010 4:44:50 PM
-1 Boost
agent 009 how many differnt automobiles have been released in the past 50 years? Also for CR to find just 5 bad autos in that time spand from the hundreds released is amazing in it self.


enthusiastx11enthusiastx11 - 4/19/2010 12:19:22 PM
+1 Boost
badgewhore: ever driving an X3, X5 or X6? who'll be AMAZED at how they handle. after that, all the lexus SUVs feel like lumbering tanks.


AirlinerAirliner - 4/14/2010 1:02:31 PM
-4 Boost
As you suggested your readers do... I connected the dots and I didn't come up with your paranoia scheme.

While I strongly disagree with CR on automotive news, tests and other information... When they throw up a Red Flag... it shouldn't be taken lightly. As you illustrated, just a handful of cars have made it to this list in over 40 years!! I don't know, if I were in the market for this type of vehicle, I would take a 2nd look.

Quick question Agent009, do you think that Toyota/Lexus' suspension of sales of this SUV is an overreaction on their part?

By the way, your post/article had a terrible ending. "So who is the real victim here? ..." I am! For having to read your article and then feeling silly enough to send you my thoughts!

I don't mean to sound like a teacher but you do better.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 1:56:35 PM
0 Boost
I think Toyota/Lexus is EXTREMELY sensitive. They have botched up a lot of things lately and can't risk doing it again.

In the overall scheme of things the GX460 is a small portion of their sales so they can afford to delay sales and error on the side of caution.

However in the future they can't afford to be held hostage by errant reports either. So I feel they need to establish a procedure to deal with this type of issue and have the feds sign off on it.

This will establish guidelines and limit liabilities, and allow real issues to be handle appropriately.


JUGNUJUGNU - 4/14/2010 1:20:09 PM
+1 Boost
"So what are the facts? I have watched the Consumer Reports video of the incident. Yep the GX460 took a lazy slide sideways, however that could easily be said by a large number of SUV’s out there on the road. Face it people it is a TRUCK, and by design, trucks don’t handle like sedans. You simply need to realize the limits and drive with in them."

Well said. I also said something similar on the other GX460 topic. I mean SUVs(especially body on frame) just have different handling limits to that of lower cars like sedans, coupes, hatches..etc. The drivers should accept and respect those limits. And i think mostly all SUVs drivers do, don't know which real conditions this Magazine is talking about, even most sedan and coupe drivers don't take corners that fast in daily driving.

JUGNU


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 2:08:14 PM
+2 Boost
Again it's not about daily driving, it's about how the vehicle reacts in emergencies. Safe driving can turn into an emergency evasive maneuver in the blink of an eye. When the vehicle doesn't perform under those circumstances, it's a problem. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the differences between car and SUV handling limits.


Agent009Agent009 - 4/14/2010 2:50:48 PM
+2 Boost
jpighetti - If you are that worried about driving dynamics then you wouldn't be driving a SUV.

SUVs by nature suck at driving dynamics especially avoidance maneuvers.


jpighettijpighetti - 4/14/2010 3:09:28 PM
+1 Boost
And airbags don't guarantee you'll walk away from an accident, but they increase the odds. Any feature that has the potential to reduce the chance of control loss, or reduce the severity of an accident that cannot be avoided, is a benefit and should be expected to work properly. Saying,"It's an SUV so it doesn't matter that it didn't work", is ridiculous. Of course SUVs are inferior at avoidance maneuvers, so shouldn't the effectiveness of stability control be even more important? You can't possibly be denying that stability control makes a difference in SUV handling at the extremes, but that's what it sounds like.


thstonethstone - 4/14/2010 1:25:40 PM
+3 Boost
Guys, I believe that some statements are wrong about the ability of modern dynamics control systems. The dynanics of wheel speeds and rates is well understood and thus, a dynamics control system can sense an impending slide or spin out and start to correct for it well before a typical driver even knew something bad was about to happen.

The fact that the Lexus system did not avoid the slide is certainly a point of concern. And when compared with the performance of similar SUV's under the same maneuver and conditions, it would appear that the Lexus deserved the rating it received.

One unanswered question is why the Highlander performed better than the Lexus. One would have expected them to be fairly similar (assuming that the vehicle dynamics were programmed the same).


thstonethstone - 4/14/2010 5:01:11 PM
+2 Boost
Thanks for correcting my incorrect reference to the Highlander to the correct 4Runner.


280SE280SE - 4/14/2010 1:26:33 PM
+4 Boost
Has anyone seen CR's ratings of the new 4runner?


280SE280SE - 4/14/2010 1:27:17 PM
+3 Boost
(as that would be the correct Toyota to compare)


no1listensanywayno1listensanyway - 4/14/2010 1:27:19 PM
+2 Boost
At first I thought it was pretty stupid as well. But the more I thought about It kind of makes sense. When you are buying a vehicle of that price point you should only expect the highest of safety and quality.
If there was a little curb or a guardrail when the truck hit that corner, it would of easily flipped over. This is 2010 people and the second generation of this vehicle, its simply unacceptable. I am sure it is a just a matter of a software fix, but still another blow to deserving blow to Toyolexus.


4ron4ron - 4/14/2010 1:35:55 PM
+4 Boost
According to recent publications (including its April auto issue) Consumer Reports had not yet fully tested nor recommended the Lexus GX 460. It has now given its verdict. Let's acknowledge that.

I wonder though. Were they testing the Camry for unintended acceleration when reports began surfacing years ago?


XYZZXYZZ - 4/14/2010 9:10:29 PM
+2 Boost
afaik, CR does the MOST EXTENSIVE testing outside of automakers themselves.

no doubt they tested the camry. but since those UA problems only showed up in like, 0.0001% of the vehicles, likely they did not get one of the bad ones.

neither did 99.9999% of camry buyers. that whole issue was WAY overblown.


AirlinerAirliner - 4/14/2010 5:04:43 PM
0 Boost
Wow Agent009... As I look around this page I see a lot of comments, criticism and even ridicule. To top it off, I see you doing a lot of replying/patchwork to your otherwise lousy article.

I'm sorry this one didn't work for you. Don't be upset with us... I'm sure you'll post something better in the future.

Have a great Hump Day!!


theoptimisticpessimisttheoptimisticpessimist - 4/14/2010 7:43:20 PM
+2 Boost
I took me 18 hours to lose ALL interest in this story.


LuvMyLexusLuvMyLexus - 4/14/2010 8:46:41 PM
+1 Boost
If I was out in the middle of no where and I took a dump, I would use a palm frond before using the pages of Consumer Reports to claen up. I would throw the magazine away.


nguyenvuminhnguyenvuminh - 4/14/2010 10:22:41 PM
+4 Boost
First the conspiracy theory on the US Gov't being the culprit. Now CR is the sinister character that juice their magazines every XX years. After all and said about the technical aspect of the test and the various vehicles tested by CR, one thing is fact and that is CR does not take advertising money from the car companies. That, in my personal opinion and you can call me gullible or naive, adds a lot of credibility to CR's outcome (be it cars or washing machines). Throw in the historical CR victims, as insinuated by 009, being both domestic and foreign car makes (some being big companies and some being small) and I again rate CR's work highly and question 009's theory about CR doing their periodic scandal theory. Lastly, CR's final comment was "...The Lexus GX has electronic stability control, which should prevent skidding, so a simple recalibration could suffice, says David Champion, head of the magazine's auto testing. The mechanically similar Toyota 4Runner did not skid in tests, CR says. The GX skid "was a surprise to us," Champion says..."
I think CR did have favourable impression of GX going into the GX test but with GX's results being such a significant deviation from the norm (with 4 different drivers and as compared against other vehicles in the same class) they felt it was proper to categorise the GX as below par. In lieu of CR's offering of re-calibration as the possible solution AND acknowledgement that Toyota 4Runner doesn't have the same problem, I still don't see CR having ulterior motive.

As for comments about the type of driving conducted, be it true emergency maneuvre or simply idiotic driving, that same driving pattern was conducted on all of the other vehicles as well. So again, it's hard for me to accept the theory of CR targeting Toyota/Lexus.


TheGeniusTheGenius - 4/14/2010 10:32:52 PM
-1 Boost
009, good article. I never trusted CR so their report is not worth the attention its getting. Lexus stopped selling because they want to be seen as responsive. For the record, I'm no fan of the GX. I drove the prior model (GX470) and didn't like it. It had a sluggish transmission kickdown, bouncy suspension, poor brakes, pathetic turning circle and loads of that "I'm going to tip over feeling" that I hate in any vehicle. However, I'm with Lexus on this one because I believe the timing of this release is questionable. All CR wants is some cheap marketing and they don't mind stepping on a wounded car maker to get it. Where were they when Explorers with Firestone tires were actually killing people? How about the recent Toyota / Lexus recalls..rusting Tundras anyone?
I guess they're unhappy that they completely missed the Toyota / Lexus acceleration issues and now want to be relevant. I wonder why people even listen to them when they know nothing about cars. They're halfway decent when you're looking for a washing machine, toaster or vacuum cleaner, but cars? Who else spends time compiling and regularly publishing nearly worthless and statistically screwed and puke inducing data on cars? If a car was reliable last year and its new this year they assume it will be reliable and vice versa for an unreliable car. so you go figure. The timing of this article is questionable and the video didn't look half as bad as it sounded. CR is no different from one of Tiger's or Jesse's girls who come out of the woodwork hoping to cash in when the story is hot. The GX is not trying to be a sports car its focus is comfort period, and while it is not a handler I really doubt is so bad that its has to be labeled do not buy. When we get real stats that GX owners flip over way more than other similar SUVs, I'll start paying attention. Until then , CR, leave Lexus alone and go test a juicer, pen, toilet tissue or something else!!!



kpaxxkpaxx - 4/15/2010 11:17:37 AM
+2 Boost
The GX is dangerous, unsafe and poorly engineered! Like most toyotas on the road!


deekdeekdeekdeek - 4/16/2010 4:10:46 PM
+1 Boost
I'm indifferent regarding this issue. I would just like to see some comparisons with other SUV's not sure but did CR release the specs of that emergency test? maybe they dont even have any specs for that test. some guy says ok..now go really really fast take your feet off the gas and make like you want to flip this thing.....ok....ready....GO!


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC