I saw this reported on CNBC this morning. I'm not sure what to think about it.
Consumer Reports says the 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUV may be unsafe and is advising car shoppers not to buy it (http://detnews.com/article/20100413/AUTO01/4130373/1148/auto01/Consumer-Reports-warns-against-buying-Lexus-GX-SUV)
In a fresh blow to Toyota Motor Corp.'s reputation, the influential magazine Consumer Reports says the 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUV may be unsafe and is advising car shoppers not to buy it.
Consumer Reports said its engineers experienced problems in emergency-handling tests that suggest the vehicle may be prone to rollovers.
"When pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track, the rear of the GX that Consumer Reports purchased slid out until the vehicle was almost sideways before the electronic stability control system was able to regain control," the magazine said in a statement.
"Consumer Reports believes that in real-world driving, that situation could lead to a rollover accident, which could cause serious injury or death," it said.
Consumer Reports said it was not aware of any such reports, however.
Toyota officials said they were concerned by Consumer Reports' test results.
"Our engineers conducted similar tests during the development of the new GX andhad no issues," said Joe Tetherow, a spokesman at Toyota Motor sales USA in Torrance, Calif. He said Toyota engineers in Japan had been notified and the company would try to duplicate the problem described by Consumer Reports and determine what measures need to be taken.
The Japanese automaker is struggling to stem the damage to its reputation after recalling 8.5 million vehicles worldwide, including 6 million in the United States. It is recalling vehicles mostly because of acceleration-related issues but also to fix braking and other problems.
Consumer Reports said all four of its engineers who tested the Lexus GX experienced the problem during an exercise used to evaluate what is called lift-off oversteer. In that test, as the vehicle is driven through a turn, the driver quickly lifts his foot off the accelerator pedal to see how the vehicle reacts.
In real-world driving, lift-off oversteer could occur when a driver enters a highway's exit ramp or drives through a sweeping turn and encounters an unexpected obstacle or suddenly finds that the turn is too tight for the vehicle's speed. A natural impulse is to quickly lift off the accelerator pedal.
Consumer Reports engineers conduct this evaluation on every vehicle they test, including 95 SUVs. "No other SUV in recent years slid out as far as the GX 460, including the Toyota 4Runner, which shares the same platform," the publication said.
To confirm the results, Consumer Reports paid to use another GX 460 from Lexus and experienced the same problem.
Water is wet.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 13, 2010, 05:54:30 AM
Water is wet.
I don't think you know what that means.
"When pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track, the rear of the GX that Consumer Reports purchased slid out until the vehicle was almost sideways before the electronic stability control system was able to regain control," the magazine said in a statement.
"Consumer Reports believes that in real-world driving, that situation could lead to a rollover accident, which could cause serious injury or death," it said.
Consumer Reports said it was not aware of any such reports, however.
What the...?
So, by extension a vehicle that doesn't have any stability control is dangerous? It may not intervene as soon as other stability control systems but CR is over reacting by calling this "unsafe" and otherwise showing its colors to be the exceedingly mediocre publication it has always been when it comes to car tech.
(http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/1994/Suzuki/2684/1994.suzuki.samurai.9989-396x249.jpg)
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 07:49:10 AM
I don't think you know what that means.
It's a tall, relatively narrow SUV. What do you expect?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
So, by extension a vehicle that doesn't have any stability control is dangerous? It may not intervene as soon as other stability control systems but CR is over reacting by calling this "unsafe" and otherwise showing its colors to be the exceedingly mediocre publication it has always been when it comes to car tech.
It's a Tall SUV, it has limits. I don't understand why people don't get this.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 13, 2010, 08:34:21 AM
It's a tall, relatively narrow SUV. What do you expect?
It's a Tall SUV, it has limits. I don't understand why people don't get this.
Well, if none of the other tall, narrow SUVs behave that way -- including the 4Runner and previous GX -- I would expect the same from this one.
When pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track
Yep! Because we all know that your average Lexus GX shopper bought the car because of its superb handling qualities and sporty feel! :facepalm:
What's next? Consumer Reports doesn't recommend the Rolls Royce Phantom because when pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track... :nutty:
And people actually believe this filth from this magazine? :facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 13, 2010, 08:44:36 AM
When pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track
Yep! Because we all know that your average Lexus GX shopper bought the car because of its superb handling qualities and sporty feel! :facepalm:
What's next? Consumer Reports doesn't recommend the Rolls Royce Phantom because when pushed to its limits on a handling course on Consumer Reports' test track... :nutty:
And people actually believe this filth from this magazine? :facepalm:
The CR test is supposed to simulate an emergency swerve. Even people who don't want sporty cars sometimes need to make a sudden change in direction.
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
The CR test is supposed to simulate an emergency swerve. Even people who don't want sporty cars sometimes need to make a sudden change in direction.
Was this test also conducted at the maximum allowed speed limits on US roads / highways?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 13, 2010, 04:09:22 PM
Was this test also conducted at the maximum allowed speed limits on US roads / highways?
Very few vehicles would behave well in a sharp swerve at 65 mph. This was almost certainly much slower.
I think people should learn to drive better and perhaps learn the ways in STFU.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
So, by extension a vehicle that doesn't have any stability control is dangerous? It may not intervene as soon as other stability control systems but CR is over reacting by calling this "unsafe" and otherwise showing its colors to be the exceedingly mediocre publication it has always been when it comes to car tech.
Sounds like another electronic malfunction. They should get Honda to check their programming ;) ; or maybe they just had the stability control turned off :huh:.
Anyways, with all the news coverage this story was getting today I expect that 0% interest and rebates will be continuing for quite a while longer.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 13, 2010, 06:22:55 PM
Sounds like another electronic malfunction. They should get Honda to check their programming ;) ; or maybe they just had the stability control turned off :huh:.
Anyways, with all the news coverage this story was getting today I expect that 0% interest and rebates will be continuing for quite a while longer.
My '05, like most cars on the road, doesn't have stability control. In this test; the rear would swing around and never be corrected (i.e., fair worse). Is my car "unsafe?"
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 06:36:26 PM
My '05, like most cars on the road, doesn't have stability control. In this test; the rear would swing around and never be corrected (i.e., fair worse). Is my car "unsafe?"
Unfortunately, Camcords don't tip over so easily... or do they?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 06:36:26 PM
My '05, like most cars on the road, doesn't have stability control. In this test; the rear would swing around and never be corrected (i.e., fair worse). Is my car "unsafe?"
No, because it wouldn't...
They've tested dozens of cars since 2001, most without stability control, and none of the others behaved this way.
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 06:45:58 PM
No, because it wouldn't...
They've tested dozens of cars since 2001, most without stability control, and none of the others behaved this way.
Judging by the videos of the test, it seems almost as if the stability control (anti-yaw) is acting to create the skid.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 13, 2010, 06:41:50 PM
Unfortunately, Camcords don't tip over so easily... or do they?
They will if when they are sideways and blow into a curb...
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 06:45:58 PM
No, because it wouldn't...
They've tested dozens of cars since 2001, most without stability control, and none of the others behaved this way.
The article says "SUVs" and "recent years" and does not note erratic behavior ("behaved this way") other than sliding further than other SUVs.
I also note that this article appears in a Detroit-centric publication, is written by a girl, and summarizes the CR test without actually providing any data other than editorialize and the ultimate conclusion. I would not doubt if there's more to the test/results, but based on what is written this does not make sense in the context of the millions and millions of non-SC vehicles out on the road. At best it's a RELATIVE measure; perhaps performed "worse" WRT to other SUVs available today.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 07:19:32 PM
They will if when they are sideways and blow into a curb...
The article says "SUVs" and "recent years" and does not note erratic behavior ("behaved this way") other than sliding further than other SUVs.
I also note that this article appears in a Detroit-centric publication, is written by a girl, and summarizes the CR test without actually providing any data other than editorialize and the ultimate conclusion. I would not doubt if there's more to the test/results, but based on what is written this does not make sense in the context of the millions and millions of non-SC vehicles out on the road. At best it's a RELATIVE measure; perhaps performed "worse" WRT to other SUVs available today.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/04/consumer-reports-2010-lexus-gx-dont-buy-safety-risk.html
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 07:21:50 PM
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/04/consumer-reports-2010-lexus-gx-dont-buy-safety-risk.html
Sorry, I see no problems other than it was relatively late to kick in; CR says as much. No mention of eratic behavior, or of tendency to tip or any of that, simply that it was late.
Many vehicles without SC will slide more, and sure they may not all be SUVs, but there are millions of such non-SC SUVs on the road today that would fare worse - and they are not a "safety risk."
Whatever did people do in their SUVs before stability control systems....
Quote from: MX793 on April 13, 2010, 08:05:45 PM
Whatever did people do in their SUVs before stability control systems....
They "drove." I'm not sure what to "drove" means, but I don't think people do it anymore.
Quote from: MX793 on April 13, 2010, 08:05:45 PM
Whatever did people do in their SUVs before stability control systems....
They died horrible, horrible deaths.
Toyota has suspended sales in the US of the Lexus GX.
Quote from: ifcar on April 13, 2010, 05:03:46 PM
Very few vehicles would behave well in a sharp swerve at 65 mph. This was almost certainly much slower.
This is from another forum:
There are only probably 4 suvs that wouldn't tip over or be in danger of tipping over in such a situation: ML63 AMG, X6/X6 M, Cayenne and Jeep GC SRT-8. Anything else I can think of would be in danger of flipping too. Why is this extreme test necessary? All you need as a driver is to be aware at all times,
it can help minimize the need for such an extreme maneuver. But I guess being aware is kind of difficult in a Lexus... :devil:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 14, 2010, 04:57:10 AM
This is from another forum:
There are only probably 4 suvs that wouldn't tip over or be in danger of tipping over in such a situation: ML63 AMG, X6/X6 M, Cayenne and Jeep GC SRT-8. Anything else I can think of would be in danger of flipping too.
Why is this extreme test necessary? All you need as a driver is to be aware at all times, it can help minimize the need for such an extreme maneuver. But I guess being aware is kind of difficult in a Lexus... :devil:
Well, considering that CR actually drove 95 SUVs through this test and listed only this one as a rollover risk, I don't know why you prefer to listen to a random forum-member's speculation.
Quote from: ifcar on April 14, 2010, 05:23:54 AM
Well, considering that CR actually drove 95 SUVs through this test and listed only this one as a rollover risk, I don't know why you prefer to listen to a random forum-member's speculation.
How would I know that Toyota Reports tested 95 SUVs? :lol:
Quote from: MX793 on April 13, 2010, 08:05:45 PM
Whatever did people do in their SUVs before stability control systems....
They stayed the heck out of them.
On the sunvisor of my dad's (older) Cherokee there are big big warnings about the fact that it will tip easier than a regular car. Yellow and black warnings.
I wish the SUV craze would go away, but I doubt it will.
(it makes it harder to see traffic with all those excessively tall trucks.)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on April 14, 2010, 05:27:00 AM
How would I know that Toyota Reports tested 95 SUVs? :lol:
Well, I guess you could have read the link I posted before spouting off. :huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 13, 2010, 06:49:09 PM
Judging by the videos of the test, it seems almost as if the stability control (anti-yaw) is acting to create the skid.
It was a sick drift.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/14/why-the-lexus-gx-may-be-rollover-prone/
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 14, 2010, 06:26:10 AM
They stayed the heck out of them.
On the sunvisor of my dad's (older) Cherokee there are big big warnings about the fact that it will tip easier than a regular car. Yellow and black warnings.
I wish the SUV craze would go away, but I doubt it will.
(it makes it harder to see traffic with all those excessively tall trucks.)
You just need to buy a taller truck so you can see over the other cars in traffic.
It is now being recalled.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 19, 2010, 03:23:59 PM
It is now being recalled.
Update on the stability control?
Quote from: Catman on April 19, 2010, 03:30:25 PM
Update on the stability control?
Yes.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/toyota-consumer-safety-advisory-102572.aspx
I am surprised that their QC missed something as obvious as a stability control system not working.
Quote from: Galaxy on April 20, 2010, 05:28:11 AM
Yes.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/toyota-consumer-safety-advisory-102572.aspx
I am surprised that their QC missed something as obvious as a stability control system not working.
To be fair, it's stability control not working in one particular case. But yes, it does seem that everyone else caught it for their SUVs.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
So, by extension a vehicle that doesn't have any stability control is dangerous? It may not intervene as soon as other stability control systems but CR is over reacting by calling this "unsafe" and otherwise showing its colors to be the exceedingly mediocre publication it has always been when it comes to car tech.
I agree. This smells a lot like the Suzuki Samurai incident from years back (of which my knowledge is all third hand, I admit), and perhaps a bit of a ploy for CR's circulation numbers.
"Toyota has more problems! Read more inside!"
Quote from: ifcar on April 20, 2010, 06:54:07 AM
To be fair, it's stability control not working in one particular case. But yes, it does seem that everyone else caught it for their SUVs.
The emergency avoidance test is a pretty routine test though, which is why I find it so surprising.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 13, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
So, by extension a vehicle that doesn't have any stability control is dangerous? It may not intervene as soon as other stability control systems but CR is over reacting by calling this "unsafe" and otherwise showing its colors to be the exceedingly mediocre publication it has always been when it comes to car tech.
If the boat has no lifevests then you know that you better be able to swim if you want to survive a capsizing. If however the boat does have lifevests then one should be able to expect that they will keep you're head above water.
Quote from: Morris Minor on April 14, 2010, 03:56:16 AM
Toyota has suspended sales in the US of the Lexus GX.
After the unintended acceleration issues, they pretty much have to at this point, don't they?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=21769.msg1311236#msg1311236 date=1271768745
After the unintended acceleration issues, they pretty much have to at this point, don't they?
After the allegations of trying to hide the acceleration issues and evading responsibility, Toyota would be insane not to act swiftly and decisively on this problem.
The Citroen Nemo, and the Peugeot Bipper Tepee also tip over. The sister van Fiat Qubo has ESP.
http://www.focus.de/auto/news/adac-crashtest-hochdachkombis-kippen-beim-ausweichen_aid_502198.html
Well at least the roof structure is sound.
Btw, my original thread in Mainstreams about these cars seems to have deleted itself.
Didn't the Citroen Berlingo do a very funky looking skiing dance in this test?+
It saddens me that the ability to do a sweet drift is "dangerous" to the point of needing an immediate stoppage of sales... God I don't want to find out how overerly aggressive all DSC systems will now be tuned by all manufacturers
:facepalm: