Originally Posted by geko29

IS250 starts at $36,100. In my area, "F-sport with additional options" is the only possible option/package, which brings it to $41,403
328i starts at $37,300. Adding Msport package brings it to $41,725

This is a price difference of $1,200 base, $320 similarly optioned ($770 if both have metallic paint) including destination. I'd say that's pretty comparable.

Base price of the IS350 is $39,615, and the 320i starts way down at $32,750. Tell me again why comparing the IS250 to the 328i is so bad?

Originally Posted by ISF350

Just show up today. First time I've ever seen a report to list Lexus as car "avoid" and fall short.
I actually test drove the IS 350 Fsport and I liked it. CR must have reviewed the 250 version as a mass.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Reports' annual auto report doesn't just recommend the best new cars to buy, based on its data. It also tells you the new cars it thinks you should avoid — no matter the deal or the bit of styling that appeals to you.

And it's perhaps a more interesting list than the menu of good cars. At least it can be a good place to start an argument.


Here are the cars to avoid, by category, with some of CR's comments on why they rejected them:

Subcompact cars

•Smart ForTwo (tiny, two-passenger cabin, a herky-jerky transmission, an under-powered engine ... a dumb choice)
•Scion iQ (rear seat is awful, the cabin is loud, acceleration is molasses-like)
•Chevrolet Spark (ride is stiff, the dinky 1.2-liter engine is slow, and handling is lackluster)


Compact cars

•Scion tC (lack of driving enjoyment, hard ride)
•Mitsubishi Lancer (under-powered engine, noisy interior)
•Dodge Dart (unrefined ... more expensive than most competitors)


Midsize sedans

•Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger (corporate cousins ... plenty of them on dealers' lots at a discount. Don't be tempted.)


Large sedans

•Ford Taurus (ridiculously cramped for such a large car ... controls for its MyFord Touch infotainment system are complicated and distracting ... reliability has been sub-par)


Luxury sedans

•Lexus IS (falls short — very short)
•Lincoln MKS (doesn't cut it as a luxury sedan)
•BMW 7-Series (a ponderous, technology-laden vehicle with ... ungainly handling)


Wagons & minivans

•Honda Crosstour (ungainly handling ... unintuitive and complex touch-screen radio system)


Small SUVs

•Jeep Compass (2.4-liter engine is rough and sluggish ... cabin is cramped, cheaply trimmed)
•Jeep Patriot (compliant ride and mostly simple controls. But little else stands out.)
•Jeep Cherokee with 2.4-liter engine (half-baked ... under-powered and not very fuel-efficient, and the nine-speed automatic transmission is unrefined and unresponsive)
•Mitsubishi Outlander (handles clumsily, the ride is fairly stiff, and the interior feels cheap)


Midsize & large SUVs

•Ford Edge (unrefined powertrain ... ride is jittery and road noise invades the cabin. And the MyFord Touch system is convoluted to use)
•Nissan Armada (overall fuel economy of 13 mpg is abysmal, reliability is poor and ownership costs are the worst in the category)
•Dodge Journey (below-average reliability ... lack of agility ... transmission is reluctant to downshift)


Luxury SUVs

•Volvo XC90 (an old design that wasn't that competitive when new)
•Lincoln MKX (handling is clumsy, the My Lincoln Touch control system is frustrating, and it has been unreliable)
•Land Rover Range Rover Evoque (choppy ride, a noisy cabin, and disconcerting emergency handling)

Originally Posted by ISF350

The old IS 250 and new IS 250 w/ that 200hp engine can't move that car much. ... It's "short" in that regard but I prefer the IS for reliable and that is it.