This is why CR should break "tech" (that have nothing with the vehicle functioning as transportation) from the overall "vehicle" ratings. It makes no sense that a #1 rated vehicle in terms of Point-A to Point-B reliability has CarPlay connectivity issues (as an example only to make a point) polluting the overall rating. Yes, these things should be measured and reported, but ...

 

I have CR. I don't see anything negative for 2016 GX. Has a 5/5 overall reliability and 4/5 for electronics. 2015 has a few dings, but still a 4/5 overall reliability. Maybe original poster mean 2015?

 

 

 

Since the info is not specific I would not worry about it. The way I’m reading the very limited info is 2016 had a lot more problems reported overall vs other years but it is not specific. Something that could play a role is how many GX’s were sold in 16 vs others years. Maybe a lot more people owned this specific year. Maybe there were a few issues in 16 that gave it a bad review. Probably minor things. If you have their info showing the specific information about what part of the vehicle is problematic this would be helpful.

 

The data they have up currently for 2016 gives it 5/5 overall and 4/5 for electronics. So perhaps as more years of data came in there really weren't many long standing issues, at least not relative to other used cars. So either it was noise, or there were a few issues that were corrected.

 

Information always is good ... but must be weighed and filtered no matter the source given there is no absolute authority, with evaluation methods, data collection, data accuracy, data integrity, data analysis all having an influence on a summary outcome. So to use any one source is asking to live with something that may end being totally inconsistent with ones expectations. CR has its place in the review landscape, but is by no means an absolute authority. This is especially true in the automotive space.

For me, a vehicle is transportation ... first and foremost ... with infotainment and other "shiny tech objects" being a distant secondary consideration. So when any review reflects a vehicle with stellar Point-A to Point-B reliability (like the GX460) but then conglomerates the performance and reliability of the "shiny tech objects" into an overall vehicle rating. All information and data is good, but the roll-up to an overall rating is IMHO totally worthless information.

 

2016 ratings aren't any different than other years.

My 2016 has been great.

 

I was surprised by this. My LS’s have been good, my GS’s amazing. Totaled my 435i Friday and need a second vehicle. Just the Cayenne won’t work.
How is the GX third row from those who have used it?
Sorry for all the hurt feelings.

 

size wise the gx is near the same size as an rx - 3rd row is for when youre in a pinch.

 

Agree - def don't get a GX if 3rd row is something needed with any frequency (Minivan for the win!) . That said, if everyone in the front, and in the second row are willing to just skootch up an inch or two, there is enough leg room for a 5'10 adult for a short trip. I always laugh when reviewers jam all the seats as far back as they will possibly go, and then contort themselves to try to fit in the 3rd row.

 

Agreed, it’s not that bad. Designed for kids not adults.