CR: Lexus SUV "safety risk"

[legalskier]

In case anyone is considering one, the Lexus GX 460 has been labeled a safety risk by Consumer Reports.

NEW YORK – Consumer Reports has given the Lexus GX 460 SUV a rare "Don't Buy" warning, saying a problem that occurred during routine handling tests could lead to a rollover accident in real-world driving. In the latest blow to Toyota's reputation, the magazine said that during a test of the vehicle's performance during unusual turns, the rear of the vehicle slid until it was nearly sideways before the electronic stability control system kicked in. Consumer Reports said in real-world driving, such a scenario could cause a rollover accident. As a result, the magazine has given the seven-seat SUV a "Don't Buy: Safety Risk" label until the problem is fixed.***
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413...pY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDY29uc3VtZXJyZXBv

For once I'm happy I could never afford one.

 

[Glenn]

I'd say now would be a relaly good time to buy one. The media will go bananas, dealers will have an over supply, prices will be slashed. Just like when gas prices went nuts...great time buy something with a really large engine.

 

[bvibert]

In case anyone is considering one, the Lexus GX 460 has been labeled a safety risk by Consumer Reports.

NEW YORK – Consumer Reports has given the Lexus GX 460 SUV a rare "Don't Buy" warning, saying a problem that occurred during routine handling tests could lead to a rollover accident in real-world driving. In the latest blow to Toyota's reputation, the magazine said that during a test of the vehicle's performance during unusual turns, the rear of the vehicle slid until it was nearly sideways before the electronic stability control system kicked in. Consumer Reports said in real-world driving, such a scenario could cause a rollover accident. As a result, the magazine has given the seven-seat SUV a "Don't Buy: Safety Risk" label until the problem is fixed.***
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413...pY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDY29uc3VtZXJyZXBv

For once I'm happy I could never afford one.

Not that I care one way or the other, but how long ago was it that no vehicles had any sort of electronic stability controls? Were they all considered unsafe? How about if people learn how to drive, and not rely on electronic band-aides. Ever hear of counter-steering?? :roll:

To me a vehicles inability to prevent it's driver from doing stupid stuff does not make it unsafe..

 

[bvibert]

BTW - In case you couldn't tell; I think the people at Consumer Reports are a bunch of effing morons with their heads up their asses. In the rare occasions that I happen to see one their 'reports', on whatever, I tend to think the opposite is true, unless I know better otherwise...

EDIT: I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't put much stock on their reports:

Consumer Reports said the last vehicle to receive such a safety warning was the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited, a large SUV. In that case, testers said the wheels lifted off the road during standard avoidance-maneuver tests, which also posed a rollover risk.

At the time, Mitsubishi disputed the magazine's findings and did not make any modifications to the vehicle, Mitsubishi spokesman Dan Irvin said. The designation appeared to have little effect on the Montero's sales, which increased overall during the second half of 2001.

The Montero remained on sale in the U.S. until 2007 and continues to be sold overseas as the Mitsubishi Pajero.

Montero owners don't either, apparently. Not that I necessarily want to associate myself with Montero owners, but them's the breaks I guess..

 

[wa-loaf]

Not that I care one way or the other, but how long ago was it that no vehicles had any sort of electronic stability controls? Were they all considered unsafe? How about if people learn how to drive, and not rely on electronic band-aides. Ever hear of counter-steering?? :roll:

To me a vehicles inability to prevent it's driver from doing stupid stuff does not make it unsafe..

I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.

 

[bvibert]

I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.

I get that. My point is not to rely on the stability control. How many vehicles are there on the road with no stability control (aside from the driver) that people manage to keep on the road, and upright? The nice to have feature may not work, but that doesn't make it unsafe, IMHO. The driver should react to correct the situation before the vehicle get's sideways. If they're incapable of that then perhaps they shouldn't be driving such a behemoth.

EDIT: I have no idea how big this thing is, I just assume it's large because it's a SUV

 

[marcski]

I don't know about you guys, but that SUV ALWAYS looked like it has a super high center of gravity. I never would have bought one before or now.

 

[Geoff]

I've been driving high center of gravity SUVs since 1986. With any heavy and top-heavy car, you have to drive it appropriately. One would expect that a tarted up Toyota Land Cruiser would fall in that category.

I pay attention to CR reliablity data. I discount the rest of their automobile report since it's pretty clear that they hate cars and view them as an appliance.

 

[hammer]

Picture from the LA Times:

Car and Driver calls it a "a gilded version of the Toyota 4Runner"

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_lexus_gx460-first_drive_review

Does this mean that the 4Runner has the same problem?

 

[bvibert]

Does this mean that the 4Runner has the same problem?

In the full article linked to in the OP CR claims that the 4Runner did not exhibit the "problem" in their tests.

 

[drjeff]

Picture from the LA Times:

Car and Driver calls it a "a gilded version of the Toyota 4Runner"

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_lexus_gx460-first_drive_review

Does this mean that the 4Runner has the same problem?

Not necessarily as an article I was reading about it says that the 4runner is 4" shorter height wise than the Lexus.

My business partner's wife drives the 2 year old version of that lexus, and it's one of the few vehicles other than a big 'ol 250/2500 or 350/3500 series pick up truck where my 6'3" frame really needs to use the running boards to get up into it!

 

[marcski]

I've been driving high center of gravity SUVs since 1986. With any heavy and top-heavy car, you have to drive it appropriately. One would expect that a tarted up Toyota Land Cruiser would fall in that category.

I pay attention to CR reliablity data. I discount the rest of their automobile report since it's pretty clear that they hate cars and view them as an appliance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Land Cruiser has a wider wheel base than the Lexus 470...which would make it more stable.

 

[Geoff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Land Cruiser has a wider wheel base than the Lexus 470...which would make it more stable.

Dunno. I clearly don't have a clue since I thought the Lexus under discussion was the fancy Land Cruiser, not the fancy 4Runner.

 

[mondeo]

I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.

So if someone driving a car with a lane departure warning system jerks the wheel and cannot react to the warning in time to avoid leaving the road, is it the warning system's fault it didn't anticipate the maneuver?

It may be an incompetent implementation of stability control, but that doesn't make the entire vehicle unsafe. ANY car will oversteer with throttle lift in a corner (or braking - which drives 90% of my left foot braking.) I lifted throttle in response to understeer once - in a '99 Cougar. One of the scariest moments in my life. Never made that mistake again.

But drivers can't be troubled to learn anything about vehicle dynamics.

Just like the unintended acceleration, this is partly Toyota's fault. Not because of the current vehicles, but because they're a prime driver in the move to thoughtless driving, of vehicles as transportation appliances.

 

[marcski]

Dunno. I clearly don't have a clue since I thought the Lexus under discussion was the fancy Land Cruiser, not the fancy 4Runner.

yeah the one under discussion is the GX. Which is the one that just looks unstable to me with a high center of gravity. The LX is the glorified Landcruiser which has a wider wheelbase and at least to my eye seems more stable.

And now I see this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/14auto.html?hp

 

[hammer]

Not necessarily as an article I was reading about it says that the 4runner is 4" shorter height wise than the Lexus.

My business partner's wife drives the 2 year old version of that lexus, and it's one of the few vehicles other than a big 'ol 250/2500 or 350/3500 series pick up truck where my 6'3" frame really needs to use the running boards to get up into it!

Got it...not a re-badged 4Runner. Probably a good thing for the 4Runner...

 

[mondeo]

And now I see this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/14auto.html?hp

Probably because people don't know how to shift into neutral, so they're too freaked out about appearing soft on safety.

 

[riverc0il]

Huh. A SUV that could possibly roll over if not driven correctly. Who whuddathinkit??? I agree with bvibert on this one. I am concerned that a computer stability thingy failing to work correctly brands a car as do not buy. The driver should be able to recover the car or shouldn't have put the vehicle in danger of a roll over to begin with. If you need a computer to save you from a roll over... you're driving the vehicle wrong. And I think I would trust my instinct more than a computer program... but then again I don't think I would have put myself in a position to ever need to split that hair. Then again, I don't drive top heavy vehicles that are likely to have roll over issues.

 

[Edd]

CR is likely looking at this from a value perspective on top of safety. This vehicle is pricey, and less expensive cars don't have the issue they claim exists here. So, in the interest of protecting the customer's wallet as well as his/her life, they are motivated to steer people toward cars without this problem.

I don't find CR to be morons so much as many, many drivers who demonstrate their lack of intelligence when the roads are slippery. ESC, imho, is a very good thing.

 

[Geoff]

Then again, I don't drive top heavy vehicles that are likely to have roll over issues.

I do. I'm not surprised at all when I see SUVs upside-down in the median strip during every snow storm. They are heavy cars with a high center of gravity. Stability control may work OK on dry roads. It's not going to help when some moron is out-driving the car on an icy road.