TangoRed

1. I honestly haven't read a review of the G63, G550, or G65 yet that hasn't mentioned the horrendous steering and overall dynamics, so not sure where you're hinting at there. It's not a vehicle to be taken seriously and most reviews seem to acknowledge that readily. Of course they're not going to invest heavily into interior revamps when only so many items can be shared with other vehicles- the damn thing is ancient. I'm quite sure Mercedes is aware this front and back solid axled, chassis-from the 70's, brick in the wind was going to straight on challenge the Range Rover. You may recall they tried to end production of it almost 10 years ago, but customers demanded it stay in production. Luckily the next generation will be shown next year.

2. There's MUCH worse going in the Range Rover than the black plastic window switches. I own a RR SC, I can say that firsthand.

3. I vehemently disagree that the GLS and GLE have a turd interiors compared to the competition. The design is certainly outdated and reflects Mercedes' old design language, but the actual build quality is higher than my RR. The GLS's closest competitor in terms of size, capacity, and purpose is the Cadillac Escalade, which features a similar level of both good interior touches and cheap ones. I'd say it's right on the money, if less aesthetically pleasing. As far as the GLE's concerned, it's certainly been upstaged by the X5 but it's not bad by any means, especially when optioned with the Designo interiors.

Toys4RJill

I have to agree, the G-class is a uttermost ridiculous example of what super rich people in North America will buy. The thing can be had with a bi turbo V12 and costs 2 times what a LX570 costs. It's for the ultra rich.

The LX570, while ridiculous in its own right, is the for the almost super rich and just rich, but it achieves the same level of stupidity but in a different way. I think Lexus knows this.

mmarshall

That's why I said said some reviewers make a lot, and some don't.

But many who are not professionals, or who post on forums like this, don't do it for the money.....they do it for the love of automobiles, love of driving, love of the world of new vehicles, the desire to find out what each new vehicle is like, and out of a sincere desire to help others (often by their own request) when it comes time for THEM to make THEIR vehicle-buying decisions. I've been sampling and/or writing up vehicles for almost 50 years now......since I was in high school. Never took a single penny for any of them, except for the $50 and $75 Mastercard sign-up offers that Ford, Lincoln (and occasionally some GM brands) have been offering at the D.C. Auto Show for test-drives....it's nice to use those cards on my favorite ground-coffee, Starbucks French-Roast, which I brew at home. I not only never wanted to be part of the official auto press (I don't care for the way much of it operates)...but I don't need to get paid for it. I had a good career and now have a good retirement, making more than I need. For me, the satisfaction comes from being a long-time member of what I consider to be one of the best general automotive talk-forums on the Internet...CL's Car Chat.

Well, to an extent, Jill, I disagree. There is a difference between simply running-on and taking the time (and the length of the write-up) to adequately and thoroughly describe a vehicle from stem to stern. Most buyers, in general, don't care how fast it can rocket from 0-60 or the quarter-mile, how hard you can slam it around on the skidpad without losing control, how quick you can panic-brake, or even, in many cases, the image factor. They DO care about day-to-day matters like versatility, ease of entry/exit, ride/seating comfort, underhood accessibility, trunk space, ease of control use and legibility, solidness of construction, headroom, legroom, gas mileage, safety features, etc... And that, IMO, what a good reviewer will include in his or her write-up.

Sometimes, however, those official press-vehicles from the manufacturer are carefully tweaked to perform better, have tighter assembly, or to look better from detailing, than the average new vehicle from that automaker sitting on the dealer lot. The most famous example of that (but, rest-assured, not the only one by any means), was when Car and Driver magazine admitted they got duped by GM sent them carefully-prepped FWD X-body compacts (Chevy Citation, Olds Omega, Pontiac Phoenix, Buick Skylark) that preformed and held up well in the hands of journalists but fell apart almost overnight, with a massive number of defects, in the actual hands of the public. (I had a Citation myself.....one of the two worst new cars I ever owned). That's why, IMO, the best way to gauge the typical quality level of a new vehicle is to simply pick one at random off the lot, check it inside and out, get the key, snap on a plate, and take a spin. (That, BTW, is also how Consumer Reports does it....they don't accept prepared vehicles from manufacturers. They buy their own vehicles from regular salespeople at local dealerships, and then re-sell them when their testing is done).

IMO, this review had Clarkson's hands all over it. The person writing it was probably one of his fan-boys.

spwolf

no, almost every review in real press has been very positive about LX, unlike many other Lexus vehicles.

For instance, MT:

Aron9000

^ I agree with some of what he says. Mainly the body work being gaudy(the previous model without the stupid huge grill looked a lot better) and it screws up the approach/departure angles. Combined with the 21" wheels, it takes a great off road vehicle(the best part about the big Land Cruiser IMO) and makes it useless except for snow covered roads.

Main thing with the gaudy body work, I think this truck was designed to sell in places like Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. They love tacky and over the top in that part of the world, plus its a Land Cruiser under the skin, which is one of the top selling cars over there, everybody has a Land Cruiser, so you can buy the LX to be different or show up the neighbors.

yakim

I am actually someone, one of the very few ones, who own a 2016 LX....did you say something?

LexBob2

Touche....

chikoo

Joystick Hate - Check
Rear leg space hate - Check
Folding into floor seats hate - Check

Lexus uses more space in making FAT/THICK seats, and not use the space more intelligently.

Quadro

I believe the seats don't fold flat because of all the variable suspension hardware underneath. Making the seats fold flat would mean rising the trunk floor to make the space. Lexus have chosen to keep trunk floor where it is but make seats fold to the sides.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

yeah if they folded flat you'd only be able to load up on pizza boxes.

TangoRed

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the GX460 has fold flat seats and variable suspension hardware without needing a high load floor.

Toys4RJill

Toyota Sequoia has adaptive variable suspension and is body on frame. Toyota just chose not to do fold flat on the LX simply to save money.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

as mentioned, the GX has it and it works just fine. the floor is higher but it's cleaner

doesn't make sense. the powered setup right now costs more than just a spring fold flat

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

wrong, the floor was raised significantly... see here:


wrong also, the lx has huge suspension travel range for extreme off road capability, something the sequoia isn't even close to.

mmarshall

Yep......purpose-designed off-roaders have to have large amounts of suspension travel and a high ground clearance. That can dictate a raised rear cargo floor. Also, another factor sometimes not taken into account is that off-roaders are some of the few remaining new vehicles that actually give you a real spare tire and wheel.....and those wheels are sometimes located under the rear bumper, back below the vehicle. There has to be enough room to accommodate them, too.