T0ked

iTrader: (2)

I agree as a status symbol. Doesn't mean they aren't overrated. For the price and high level of unreliability, I think of it as the ultimate poseur vehicle. I'd have no reservations taking an LX or a G-wagen out into the wilderness because i wouldn't worry about the car not getting me back home. Anyone can pop a huge engine into an SUV and make it go fast. The only RR that have the respect deserved of RR are the stripped version sold overseas. Obviously all IMO.

Toys4RJill

Haha, because those rich folks really take their luxury SUVs off road. I would call the LX overrated by a LOT. The rear hatch sucks, third row sucks, its live axle is not smoother than an IRS......I would even argue that its 5.7 sucks as it has the worst in class performance and as well as the worst in class towing capacity......oh and its EPA ratings are worst in class as well. It also has the smallest fuel tank....the LX is over rated..

T0ked

iTrader: (2)

And that's why MT ranked the LX ahead of the RR... Even with all those deficiencies.

spwolf

did you read the article? doesnt seem so... they didnt spec race these cars, they drove them. Thats why RR finished 4th.

Toys4RJill

Which is fine. And I have no problem with that. But it also sells that worst out of the comparo and the interior is the most dated. I like the LX, but I think there are much better alternatives.

The LX has the advantage of never breaking, but the RR does have better off road credentials in approach and departure angles..

Toys4RJill

That's just a few opinions that placed the LX ahead of the RR. I have driven both and I think the RR is the better more luxurious vehicle. Its also more prestigious and the facts also state that its better specs.

mmarshall

Jill has a point on this one. Not many SUV owners today actually do hard-core off-roading (except for the ubiquitous Jeep Wrangler, which is maybe at 25%, estimates are around 5% or so for most SUVs). Indeed, some insurance policies won't even cover off-road use. But, for those who DO go off road and crawl along, short overhangs and approach, departure, and breakover angles are very important (as are under-chassis skid-plates) in protection from damage from logs, boulders, and other obstacles. In general, the larger the angles (and the higher the ground clearance), the more potential off-road protection a vehicle will have....unless the vehicle is jacked up so high (like trucks with monster-tires), that the center-of-gravity becomes dangerous.

That, unfortunately, is where the long-wheelbase Cadillac Escalade ESV and Lincoln Navigator L (which are not mentioned in the article) really fall short. Their gargantuan length, overhangs, and low angles could quickly get one in trouble in true off-road conditions.

rxonmymind

Lol. That's putting it in perspective. Also your additional points of dated interior and worst sales figures of the bunch hit home as well as off road capabilities being bested by others is telling. Honesty can be hard to accept.

Toys4RJill

I am just sick and tired of hearing about the LX570 and even the Land Cruiser.

What gets me angry is that LX and LC fans accept the BS Kool Aid that Lexus throws at them. The facts that get overlooked are that the LX and LC are now in their 8th model year (7th if you don't count the missing 12 model) with absolutely no changes to the 5.7, no new features, the same crappy rear hatch and third row design, dated interior and I could go on.

At least with both the LC/LX450 and LX470, there were powertrain modifications, new interiors, wheel upgrades, feature changes that showed that Lexus actually cared about the customer. (Same applies to the Sequoia)

There is no excuse as to why the LX should not have DI and more power, an 8 speed with slightly better MPG than the god awful MPG it has now, a fix for the rear seats that stay bolted in, a much better rear hatch (Toyota spent the money and put a good rear hatch in the 4Runner) that just screams cost cutting and cheap, how about a new interior with remote touch.

At least with the changes to the 2013 LS460, there was a new inferior, more HP, changes to the body panels etc etc.

Lexus used to preach "continuous" improvement, etc etc...why not anymore?

rominl

iTrader: (4)

you call that power increase in the 2013 ls460? you can't be serious

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Its very impressive where the LX finished. With that said, the lack of BSM until this upcoming MY16 major minor is a little angering

Toys4RJill

Yes I am serious. Its better than nothing and at least Lexus did something to the 4.6 to find some extra HP.

Lexus/Toyota has not done anything to the 3.5 for 11 MY years the Tacoma 4.0 for 11 MY years, the 2.5V6 for 10 MY years and I could go on. Its unacceptable IMO.

The LX is a really dated machine that should of been upgraded a long long time ago.

Toys4RJill

No BSM on the flagship SUV but they added it to the Sequioa....

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Yup, LX and CT are the only ones that have yet to get it. The CT is somewhat understandable being an entry level (though it should still be an option), LX on the other hand, for a $90K luxury flagship, its rather inappropriate not to offer it

spwolf

fact state that outside the looks, it is pretty mediocre vehicle with bad quality (fit/finish, materials and reliability) and highest price. There is no way they could have scored it better than 4th.

Yes, it looks great but thats not enough for magazine doing comparos to it well.