I have been watching closely as Toyota struggles and strains to keep the Lexus name out of their current drive-by-wire problems, even though one of the very first reported casualties of that problem was in a Lexus ES. Well, apparently they won't be able to put the squash on an independent magazine's latest column, huh?

Don't Buy: Safety Risk--2010 Lexus GX 460 - Consumer Reports

"Consumer Reports has judged the 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUV a Don’t Buy: Safety Risk because of a problem we experienced during our standard emergency-handling tests. When pushed to its limits on our track’s handling course, the rear of the GX we bought slid out until the vehicle was almost sideways before the electronic stability control system was able to regain control.

We believe that in real-world driving, that situation could lead to a rollover accident, which could cause serious injury or death. We are not aware, however, of any such reports.

All four of our auto engineers who conduct the test experienced the problem in an exercise used to evaluate what’s called lift-off oversteer. In the test, as the vehicle is driven through a turn, the driver quickly lifts his foot off the accelerator pedal to see how the vehicle reacts."

I guess when it rains, it pours.
Toyota... Suxtabeya.

 

Well I guess we all know next months Motor Trend will giving Lexus a big win.

 

This could be a very big deal.

Consumer Reports has a lot of influence on a good number of vehicle buying decisions. A "Don't buy" is serious.

 

Did anyone see the video = http://jalopnik.com/5515879/lexus-gx...dont-buy-award

I've given up on Consumer Reports when it comes to cars. Because the SUV can't take a hair pin turn like a Corvette you shouldn't buy it? Yeah, it looks like the stability control sucks but if you are driving like a normal person you shouldn't have to worry about it. I've never even owned a car/truck with stability control until our Equinox.

So by CR's logic, should all other SUVs/trucks that don't have stability control also be a "Don't buy"

 

Well, maybe. The thing is, with stability control becoming common, it can now be used as another chassis tuning "tool" (just like spring rates, damper rates, sway bar sizing, suspension geometry, etc.). So now you could potentially design the mechanical parts of the suspension in a way that might favor ride and quietness over handling, for example, to the point that without stability control, the handling might border on unacceptable.

I think there are modern airplanes (military) out there that actually border on being unstable in steady flight, and it is the sophisticated fly-by-wire and brains of the system that allow them to fly safely with constant adjustments being made, faster than the pilot could do. Maybe I'm nuts, but I think I read that this is the case (or maybe I read that such things are coming).

I wonder, would CR rate any Porsche 911 up to the late nineties a "don't buy"? I think the term "lift throttle oversteer" was pretty much coined for that car. Generally, I'd say that making any sudden transition in the middle of a turn is not really a good idea unless you know what you are doing, regardless of the vehicle.

 

The point is that with electronic stability control, the vehicle should not be doing this. Someone who may just assume that the computer nanny will save them from their own stupidity (or rapid avoidance maneuver at speed) will get a surprise.

Outside of that I guess the question is, is this vehicle documented to be more prone to oversteer or is the oversteer significantly greater compared to others in its class? My initial guess would be, probably not.

I certainly have no love for Toyota but I would agree that 99.99999% of the population would never experience this since they aren't going to be pushing a vehicle like that to its handling limits.

 

Well I don't know about you guys, but I routinely take out my Lexus GX to auto-x events.

 

You're not nuts - screw flying safely, the latest jets will barely even fly at all without those systems.

Back to the point though, try driving a z06 (or heck, anything at those power levels) with the nanny controls off in wet weather. You're going to slide all over the place unless your foot is extremely sensitive. At this point, most high end sports cars already rely on aids to tame them. Think you've got the guts? Try driving a z06 in half an inch of snow with the nanny gone!

Until GM puts a waiver on a Corvette buyers agreement that you are not allowed to drive it in the snow or cold weather, it is expected that someone could go out and drive it in a glazing of snow and ice. The only way to make it anywhere near possible is with those nanny systems, and it's only going to get worse. Heck, look at Toyota and how their "drivers" seem to have forgotten how to operate their vehicles...

 

I'm annoyed that all these advanced systems even exist. They add complexity, add cost, add weight, increase maintenance costs when they fail, and I believe they make drivers more complacent and therefore less safe in the long run. Just like drive by wire, when complexity is added, problems occur. What's wrong with simple and predictable mechanical systems? I don't understand why our world has become obsessed with making everything electrical/computerized! And one more thing.... sorry for the rant

 

YEAH!!! I wish we could go back to the days of using a crank in order to start the engine. Stupid starters always going out on me.

 

I think the idea is not that this would be run like a Corvette or whatever, but that it would happen in an unexpected emergency maneuver... making the situation potentially worse.

 

you sure showed me by thinking of the most extreme example you possibly could and stating it sarcastically to make me look like an extremist moron. If I cranked my engine by hand every morning, I'd welcome an electric starter motor. However, I've never owned a vehicle with stability control, I know it exists, yet I don't miss not having it in my normal every day vehicle. I see it as being more complexity and cost than is required in a vehicle that isn't designed for extreme performance. I also don't understand the benefit of having a computer translate the position of a pedal into the motion of an electric motor attached to the throttle. A steel cable attaching the gas pedal to the throttle with a return spring is more reliable and has a much better outcome in case of failure. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but don't insinuate that I'm a fool for having it.

 

So how do you know if you miss something if you've never had it before?

That's like an virgin saying he sure misses having sex.

 

Correct, the issue here is that stability control appears to be failing at doing just that - making the vehicle stable (as in an emergency maneuver). I also wholly understand the argument that no one will be auto-crossing a Lexus SUV anytime soon, and the presence of oversteer or other scary handling qualities in a large SUV certainly wouldn't be uncommon.

To me, stability control is a welcomed feature in a vehicle with a high center of gravity, like an SUV. And you're right, you may never miss it - until you need to suddenly swerve to avoid something in the road or the yo-yo next to you that decides to merge into your lane.

 

My '09 Aura has stability control -- the first car I've owned to have it. We bought it in December, and there was snow on the ground. I wanted to see what stability control does, so I found some snow-covered roads and yanked the wheel (on a deserted road near my house) to see what happens. The dash blinked "ESC ACTIVE" and the car turned just like I told it to, no drama. I turned off ESC and did the same, and the car understeered like mad -- didn't turn at all. Pretty cool.

Then I bought a set of Bridgestone Blizzaks and had them mounted. A few days later, I repeated the same test, and could not for the life of me get the stability control to engage.

So, I'd suggest that if you're worried that stability control is going to kill you, you get some better tires.