Dude...stick with something you can afford......

 

I thought this forum was frequented by people who demanded the best in an SUV instead of by rich snobs for whom money was always no object. I found more of those folks on Mercedes forums.
Lexus just seems to give LX owners the least amount of technology advances. It always ranks the dead last in fuel efficiency; it just looks unfitting for being the best (in our mind) in its class in terms of technology.

 

I could not be more happy with my 5th new LX and I have owned Mercedes, Porshe, BMW and was glad to be back with Lexus. I do not consider myself to be a rich snob as I work very hard for my money.

We do see judgmental snobs like you come into the forum all the time to trash our brand. Best of luck on that!

Want good mileage get you a Prius!

 

If I didn't want the "best in an suv", I would't be driving one, nor would my wife.

I'm aware of the "fuel efficiency" thing. I'm also aware that both trucks weigh about 3 tons, have automatic transmissions, and full time AWD. With about 5 seconds of thought, I may conclude that mileage will suck, at the very least. The good thing about the LX and Land Cruiser is that they're infinitely more reliable than Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, and Land Rover. I guess you can pay for gas or shop time...your choice.

In regard to your comment as to "it just looks unfitting for being the best (in our mind)"...how many of you are there? You're probably not schizoid, so note that using the kingly "we-they-our" is pretentious at the least when the pronouns refer to something similar. It tends to make those who use that phrasing sound just like "rich snobs for whom money was no object".


MB, BMW, Porsche, and (maybe) Rover will get you anywhere you want to go. A Land Cruiser or LX will get you back.

I'm by no means rich...is simply saved the money and paid cash for both trucks. Patience...

Steve

 

I was going to try a Range Rover but seeing how my neighbors did, I will pass. I have followed or taken him to the dealer to get the POS fixed multiple times. They had it for over a month and finally returned it to him. It was dead as a door nail the next morning and would not start for about the 50th time! He travels a lot and at any time the vehicle will not start. LOL!

He is at the point where they will have to buy it back from him and will be getting a LX!

 

jzdulexus, welcome to the forum! I am a bit late here, but from my perspective, your points are well-taken. I am - quite frankly - surprised at some of the responses you've received. Some are constructive, but others are a bit uninformed (and one stands out as a bit asinine and rude, IMHO).

I haven't had the pleasure of driving a '16 LX yet but am a huge fan of all the changes. However, like others, I am holding out until the full redesign. Yes, they added some much-needed, long-overdue technology, but I agree that the drive train could have used some additional upgrading. The transmission upgrade is definitely a nice step, which can only help in terms of mpg, but the engine remains. Interestingly, some of the early marketing materials I saw for the '16 LX alluded to a slight engine tweak, but this didn't happen.

The 5.7 on the LX is a very reliable workhorse. There are, however, two things that some competitors (like, say, the Escalade) have that can and do make a difference: direct injection and cylinder deactivation.

I had the opportunity to rent an Escalade last year and drive it for close to 1,000 miles. I won't get into a detailed comparison here (in fact, last year, I had drafted one, my computer crashed, then the '16 came out, and my comparison became 75% moot...). However, on the subject at hand, that truck has a bigger engine that - on paper - produces more torque and hp. Yet, I did consistently experience 20 and 21 mpg on the highway (at 85). My rental had an 8-speed transmission as well, just like the '16 LX.

The Escalade was no LX in terms of on-road manners (ride was much stiffer, even with magnetic control set to softest setting) and did not feel as refined in some ways (again, I could elaborate), but the cylinder deactivation feature worked smoothly and flawlessly. Any horror stories/memories in people's minds from Cadillac's experiment with the 8-6-4 in 1981 are simply not remotely applicable anymore. In fact, Chrysler began using this feature last decade on RAM trucks. It's been around now for a while.

At any rate, re-architecting an engine for direct injection may not have been feasible for a relatively short run by Lexus on the "rejuvenated" LX, but I am genuinely curious as to whether Lexus experimenting with cylinder deactivation technology on this engine, which in theory would only require software changes, and just chose not to pursue it for some particular reason (reliability-related, vibration/harshness, etc.)

Bottom line, there are ways to improve mileage (albeit by smaller amounts). Lexus does have a "method to its madness", and I can accept that, but again, I hear where you're coming from.

Just my two cents... Enjoy your LX (if you decide to go for it)!

 

Thanks caha14. I think it has been a very informative discussion, at least for me. Now I think its probably true that the advances touted by other brands were probably not that substantial. All the LX reviews I read were probably too focused on the latest SUV features. Technologies, such as turbo, may not have all the positive effects, yet they do seem outstanding on paper. I guess there may indeed be tradeoffs between reliability and technology.

 

Turbos are definitely in a league of their own and do add more reliability and longevity considerations. Then there are things like what Greg mentioned, for those of us who love our low-end torque. :-) So yes, I'm a fan of naturally-aspirated engines but do appreciate these "enhancements" we were talking about. Lexus does use direct injection in some form on IS, GS and LS engines.

 

I hope Lexus realizes that car shoppers like me read many reviews before they buy and in last five years car reviews on LX had been uniformly bad, basically it boils down to "LX is really outdated..." Had I not been a Lexus owner myself in the last twenty years (not of SUV) I would not even have looked at LX based on what I read. If nothing else Lexus needs to do a much better job marketing LX.

 

I'm glad for him in the upcoming LX.

Made on the same assembly line, like the Cruiser. 100% Japanese content, like the Cruiser. LOL.

 

Wow, that's bizarre, but lemons do happen - across the board. My thing in favor of LX is that I don't think the LC is cheaper by enough (IMHO) to warrant giving up a bunch of the extra stuff one gets with the Lexus. Put differently, I feel you get more bang for the buck with the LX. That did change a bit in recent years, as the LC has had standard radar cruise for longer than LX. I do wish the LX had KDSS like the Cruiser, though .

 

Folks, knock off the rude personal commentary or do not post. The thread seems to have come back around so please help keep it polite, mature and stay open.

 

Do you mean Land Rover?

 

That definitely sounds like my Land Rover that I traded for a Lexus

 

Sorry I did mean Range Rover.