Roll Over Risk: Consumer Reports warns against 2010 Lexus GX460

Kinda makes you wonder what kind of junk they're building these days.


"Consumer Reports, the widely respected arbiter of quality and
reliability, urged customers not to buy the 2010 Lexus GX460 because
it may roll over in certain situations based on tests by the
magazine's automotive test drivers.

This is the first time the magazine has issued a "don't buy"
recommendation on any Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle."

http://www.freep.com/article/2010041...xus-GX460-risk

john wrote:
> Kinda makes you wonder what kind of junk they're building these days.
>
>
> "Consumer Reports, the widely respected arbiter of quality and
> reliability, urged customers not to buy the 2010 Lexus GX460 because
> it may roll over in certain situations based on tests by the
> magazine's automotive test drivers.
>
> This is the first time the magazine has issued a "don't buy"
> recommendation on any Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle."
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/2010041...xus-GX460-risk
>

I'm beginning to think there just might be something to the
conspirators' theory that someone is out to "get" Toyota.
Gov't, UAW, and banksters with financial interests in the new GM can
pull a lot of levers and push a lot of buttons when they want to.

On Apr 14, 12:13*am, FatterDumber& Happier Moe
> wrote:
> john wrote:
> > Kinda makes you wonder what kind of junk they're building these days.
>
> > "Consumer Reports, the widely respected arbiter of quality and
> > reliability, urged customers not to buy the 2010 Lexus GX460 because
> > it may roll over in certain situations based on tests by the
> > magazine's automotive test drivers.
>
> > This is the first time the magazine has issued a "don't buy"
> > recommendation on any Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle."
>
> >http://www.freep.com/article/2010041...4/1331/Consume...
>
> * I'm beginning to think there just might be something to the
> conspirators' theory that someone is out to "get" Toyota.
> * Gov't, UAW, and banksters with financial interests in the new GM can
> pull a lot of levers and push a lot of buttons when they want to.

"get " toyota! the 4 runner didnt do it and its the same frame. CR has
squashed a few Suvs in the past years from Rollover potential. "Get
Toyota" get a life, toyota im sure knew this and again doesnt do
anything. By not doing anything, they Save Mo Moneeey. Just like the
fix production Prisus and dont notify any one of any problems. That
16,000,000 fine was 16 because thats the max that can be fined

On Apr 13, 10:48*pm, john > wrote:
> Kinda makes you wonder what kind of junk they're building these days.
>
> "Consumer Reports, the widely respected arbiter of quality and
> reliability, urged customers not to buy the 2010 Lexus GX460 because
> it may roll over in certain situations based on tests by the
> magazine's automotive test drivers.
>
> This is the first time the magazine has issued a "don't buy"
> recommendation on any Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle."
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/2010041...4/1331/Consume...

The real issue is Im sure the boss knew, so again they use the dont
tell policy.

john wrote:
> Kinda makes you wonder what kind of junk they're building these days.
>
>
> "Consumer Reports, the widely respected arbiter of quality and
> reliability, urged customers not to buy the 2010 Lexus GX460 because
> it may roll over in certain situations based on tests by the
> magazine's automotive test drivers.
>
> This is the first time the magazine has issued a "don't buy"
> recommendation on any Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle."
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/2010041...xus-GX460-risk
>

Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be tested
the same way as a standard automobile.

Normally an SUV will have a higher ride height, taller tires with taller
sidewalls, more suspension travel and heavier parts overall because of
it's intended use.
As such it ends up with a higher center of gravity. care to guess what
happens when you take a vehicle with a high COG through a course
designed to test handling in a car? You turn over.
VERY predictable and was the same crap that killed the CJ series of
Jeeps. Morons who bought them for the looks and drove them like they
were Corvettes.

It's like saying that McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, or any other
restaurant are responsible for obesity.
Instead of looking at the 400 pound person sitting there with three Big
Macs, two super orders of fries, a couple milk shakes and an apple pie
and saying, GEE maybe they are FAT because they eat 4 times the food
they need and don't exercise.

(and for anyone obese who thinks I'm mean. I am FAT myself and am
working to lose it. That means you will still see me in McDonalds, BUT I
will be eating a salad, ONE regular burger, and unsweetened tea.
And I will be walking 4-5 miles a day as well as using my new weight
machine to lose some fat.)


--
Steve W.
(\___/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Steve W. > wrote:
>Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be tested
>the same way as a standard automobile.

The problem is that they are sold as standard automobiles, and people drive
them as if they were standard automobiles. And then they are surprised
when they don't act like standard automobiles.

>Normally an SUV will have a higher ride height, taller tires with taller
>sidewalls, more suspension travel and heavier parts overall because of
>it's intended use.
>As such it ends up with a higher center of gravity. care to guess what
>happens when you take a vehicle with a high COG through a course
>designed to test handling in a car? You turn over.

The thing is, this happens at least once a day on the Washington Beltway.
So it might be worth testing for on the track as part of a vehicle
evaluation.

>VERY predictable and was the same crap that killed the CJ series of
>Jeeps. Morons who bought them for the looks and drove them like they
>were Corvettes.

Well, yes. But that's something people need to be warned about, and
if Consumer's Reports is coming out and saying "you can't drive this like
a car and get away with it," that seems like a good thing and not a bad one,
right?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Steve W. > wrote:
>> Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be tested
>> the same way as a standard automobile.
>
> The problem is that they are sold as standard automobiles, and people drive
> them as if they were standard automobiles. And then they are surprised
> when they don't act like standard automobiles.

So what part of SUV says that it is a "normal car" is it the required
stickers on the visor which warn the owner that the vehicle has a high
center of gravity and that it has a danger of roll over? Or maybe the
big warning to the same effect that is part of the owners manual?

>
>> Normally an SUV will have a higher ride height, taller tires with taller
>> sidewalls, more suspension travel and heavier parts overall because of
>> it's intended use.
>> As such it ends up with a higher center of gravity. care to guess what
>> happens when you take a vehicle with a high COG through a course
>> designed to test handling in a car? You turn over.
>
> The thing is, this happens at least once a day on the Washington Beltway.
> So it might be worth testing for on the track as part of a vehicle
> evaluation.

That would be part of natural selection in that area.... Maybe the
people should learn to SLOW DOWN (and yes I have driven the inner and
outer loops, in cars, trucks, and in tractor trailers)

>
>> VERY predictable and was the same crap that killed the CJ series of
>> Jeeps. Morons who bought them for the looks and drove them like they
>> were Corvettes.
>
> Well, yes. But that's something people need to be warned about, and
> if Consumer's Reports is coming out and saying "you can't drive this like
> a car and get away with it," that seems like a good thing and not a bad one,
> right?

NO. What needs to happen is that the idiots who insist on NOT
understanding the vehicle they are driving need to be taken off the
road. Same with the ones who like to read the paper/book, yap on the
phone or change their clothes, or have sex while driving.

> --scott
>

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> Steve W. > wrote:
>>Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be tested
>>the same way as a standard automobile.
>
> The problem is that they are sold as standard automobiles, and people
> drive them as if they were standard automobiles. And then they are
> surprised when they don't act like standard automobiles.



And...logic does not intrude?

"They" don't notice a very serious difference from cars the very first time
"they" go around a corner?

"They" don't notice a very serious difference the very first time "they"
have to swerve to avoid debris in the road?

Then "they" are abundant and prominent indicators why modern times are not
always better than past times.

"They" need to win the Darwin award.


--
Tegger

"Steve W." > wrote in
:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Steve W. > wrote:
>>> Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be
>>> tested the same way as a standard automobile.
>>
>> The problem is that they are sold as standard automobiles, and people
>> drive them as if they were standard automobiles. And then they are
>> surprised when they don't act like standard automobiles.
>
> So what part of SUV says that it is a "normal car" is it the required
> stickers on the visor which warn the owner that the vehicle has a high
> center of gravity and that it has a danger of roll over?



Oh, is that the same big yellow warning that the amazingly dysfunctional
American tort system forced automakers to install?

Is that the same big yellow warning that appears right next to the other
big yellow one that warns you that there is a bomb in the dashboard that
will kill you and your kids unless you stay far away from it? And I'm not
even going to mention all those other big yellow warnings, to the same
effect, that litter modern Owner's Manuals like leaves in the fall.



>
> NO. What needs to happen is that the idiots who insist on NOT
> understanding the vehicle they are driving need to be taken off the
> road.



No. What needs to happen is that the idiots who insist on NOT understanding
the vehicle they are driving need to suffer the consequences of their
actions and not have the amazingly dysfunctional tort system allow them to
make others pay for their actions instead. Remember that you're talking
about 0.0001% of drivers. Modern tort and legislation penalize 99.9999% of
drivers so that the lawyers for the 0.0001% can hit the punitive jackpot.


--
Tegger

Tegger > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:
>
>> Steve W. > wrote:
>>>Actually it makes me wonder what moron thinks ANY SUV should be tested
>>>the same way as a standard automobile.
>>
>> The problem is that they are sold as standard automobiles, and people
>> drive them as if they were standard automobiles. And then they are
>> surprised when they don't act like standard automobiles.
>
>And...logic does not intrude?

"What went through your head when you realized you weren't driving a
standard automobile?"

"Uhh.... a big piece of steel guard rail..."
--Scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."