My local dealer has become much less responsive in the last eighteen months or so. Is anyone else seeing this? Does anyone think the poor build quality/recall-prone TX is overwhelming the Lexus dealers' service capacity?

 

Poor quality/build make customers want to trade/sell buy new. Turnover of vehicles = dealers make more $$. Maybe their frustration of knowing Toyota is becoming another US car manufacturer of FORD (Fix Or Repaid Daily) cars….

 

Nope. I'm not finding it an issues with my local dealer. If your dealer is bad, fill out those customer satisfaction surveys. I heard that impacts the dealers on new vehicle allocations and bonus $$.

TX build quality isn't that bad for a 1st gen. It's not expected to be a perfect as the RX of course. My TX has a few nags but a show stopper to sell the vehicle.

 

"TX build quality isn't that bad for a 1st gen."

Not exactly a glowing recommendation. After having owned a 2008 RX, a 2011 LS, and a 2024 ES, my TX just doesn't feel like a Lexus - and I bought the luxury AWD.

 

I agree with you. I had to dealt with a few problems on our TX as well. We are coming from a RX, ES and NX. For the TX, we only got the TX500h perf premium since there were no Luxury in our area. We don't use the sunroof anyways.

 

My three Lexus vehicles (2010, 2023, 2026) are and have been trouble free and are well built. My recent and past dealer service experiences have been very good, at two different dealerships. So ... I'm NOT seeing the issues youvseem to think are ubiquitous.

I AM aware of the issues Lexus/Toyota has had with turbo V6 engines ... and taht they're making good on. Funny thing is that most brands are having similar oroblems with their newer, more efficient engines with ultra tight bearing clearances.

But none of my cars seem to be affected.

 

I think you are right about most brands having similar problems. If I look at customer ratings for cars/SUVs, the newer models seem to have somewhat lower scores than the older ones. I wonder if we reached peak ICE quality a few years ago (circa 2018)?

 

So you’re implying that because of EPA and “GREEN” standards to require meeting quotas that the engines are poor quality then years past?
Is this the cost consumers pay for being controlled?

 

Yes and yes.

 

I think that "quality" is the wrong metric, as it implies poor workmanship. And I REALLY don't think that's the case.

Most likely its the drive to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of the ICE under broad operating conditions that's lead to us pushing the technology we already have a bit too far and hard - and we're discovering we'll need some new refinements and finesse in materials, machining and design to do this successfully. Recent reliability improvements means we're learning from this and are likely converging on good solutions. This is how engineering always works, even with the best controlled tests. Because the real world is never controlled.

Note that the Toyota/Lexus turbo-4 has been remarkably reliable across the two product lines - even in pickup trucks - while the turbo V6 has had some (not a lot percetage wise - but NOT 6-sigma, either) of spectacular failures in service. Right now, there are probably a LOT of Toyota engineers and consultants asking "What did we do differently between the two engines?" - and they've probably learned a LOT from this and the returned, failed engine analyses.

 

This is a very intelligent comment, and I agree with the general direction of it. The bad news for consumers is that the cost of experimentation, which is always borne by the consumer, has really climbed.

 

In a short-term sense, yes, in a long term sense, no. Consider the many past issues - very similar to this - that cars have had: 1. The Chevy Vega aluminum engine block with nikasil bore liners that had a nearly a 100% failure rate, 2. The Cadillac 4-6-8V fiasco, 3. Oldmobile 5.7L V8 diesel disaster ... and there are many more past examples by many manufacturers.

What HAS changed over time is the life and dependbility we expect and generally receive from our cars. In the '60' and '70's it was common for new vehicles to have service lives of 80-90,000 miles and 5-12 years. Since then cars have become much, much more complex AND we expect 200,000+ miles and 15-20 years of service from them. Warranties were once 12 months/12,000 miles - now they're routinely 3-5 years and 60-100K miles. Not too shabby!

Later, manufacturers - primarily Japanese - using techniques introduced to them by E. Edwards Demming and others - "raised the bar" a LOT - and if you lived through that period, you might recall that even with that, their initial vehicles STILL rusted away to nothing in cold, "salt" climates not found in Japan - in just a few years. But they learned from this and adapted, other makers had to follow suit to compete and we all benefitted.

Now - there have been a few stumbles as we come up against the physical limits of ICE efficiency and take a slightly different direction and push tech and complexity to its limit in the name of resource conservation, comfort and convenience. World population has more than doubled and the number of drivers has about tripled.

So ... We still have it pretty good - but did go through a period of stability where extreme reliability is/was the norm. And it still is, with some brands and vehicles.

What is truely remarkable is how far electric and hybrid vehicles have advanced relatively recently - without suffering too many absolute failures. Still ... Buyer Beware" ALWAYS applies to ANY purchase. Hybrids and electrics have been tried before - nothing new , here - and failed badly (Owens Electric gas/electric hybrid, Baker and Milburn electrics, etc.). And now - they're actually practical - if somewhat less reliable.

 

I believe that a big part of the service issue is a shortage of experienced mechanics in the market. There are just fewer young people coming up through the ranks and of those fewer are chosing to be mechanics.

On quality and frequent service, I was told by a Lexus technician than the engineers used to over build but for the sake of efficiency they sought every opportunity to be more efficient. The turbo four engines are OK in smaller cars but the same engine powering an NX is powering the TX even though the TX is significantly heavier and bigger. I cannot say for sure, but I suspect the TX drivetrains are not that much different than the RX or even the TX.

At 2.5 years I have replaced the left front axle and rear rack and pinion, but I still hear the same drive train noise (clanking). I have the extended warranty, but I am looking to sell it and buy something different. The drag of that is:

• In all other aspects it's a terrific car, I will truly miss it.
• The closest size and reliability comparison is the Honda Pilot/Acura MDX but they do not have the luxury features of a TX.
• Anything else is either is much more expensive or smaller.
• The other drag is I am a person who holds my cars forever. That worked on my other two Lexus's. Now I am looking at other cars after having "spent" $30,000 (depreciation) to drive my car for only 2.5 years (purchase price vs current market price).

It would be great if Lexus had a solution because I would happily keep my car. Unfortunately, the depth of the issues will take them some amount of time to dig out of.

 

We found a big difference between dealers when trying to buy ours. The closest dealer was horrible getting back to us, etc. Multiple people. Where we got it, much better.

 

We live in Charlotte, NC. There is only 1 dealer. The next closest is Columbia, SC or Durham.