Enigma869

Thanks for weighing in with a new perspective, ADVocate. I guess I've been rather oblivious to the fact that there are actually people out there who consider horsepower when purchasing an SUV. In terms of the interior of the Jaguar, I also disagree with you. I've been in many Jaguars and am not even remotely impressed with their interiors. I think the Lexus wins that battle, hands down! As for the Range Rover, I agree that this is probably the ultimate SUV in terms of appearance. I guess we all sort of agree on that and we also all agree that until RR does something to address their well-documented history of very poorly built vehicles, I certainly wouldn't be giving them a nickel of my money.

I think the major thing that Lexus, as a company, has done since its inception is building an impeccable record of reliability. Even those who abuse Lexus and call it a "fancy Toyota" can't argue with their track record. Their reliability record and customer satisfaction level are unmatched by any auto manufacturer in the industry. What's probably a more important point is that Lexus is the only luxury auto maker who is even remotely near the top of these lists every single year. Mercedes, BMW, Range Rover, Vovlo, etc all rank near the very bottom of every reliability list in the industry. While this may not seem like a huge issue to some, when considering just what they like, I'm here to tell you that it absolutely does matter and that Lexus' track record should not be ignored. I've owned some of the other luxury autos, and they simply don't match up to Lexus in terms of the value you get for the money spent.

For the record, I am not and have never really been a fan of many of the vehicles Lexus makes, in terms of their appearance. I've driven an LS430, and while beautifully done inside, it's exterior appearance is very plain and boring for my taste. That said, Lexus got my business because of their most impressive record and after owning my 2004 LX for over a year now, my opinion of Lexus and their build quality have only been reinforced.

John from Boston

ADVocate

Well stated, John. It appears that we are both slaves to our sensibilities. I will agree. I also believe that the other manufacturers wish they could be in a similar dilemna ... or lack thereof ... of dealing with these simple complaints. In most cases they seem to have bigger fish to fry. Or is it just that we do not complain enough, to what ever agency heeds disgruntled comments, from the general purchasing population... I think not. Regardless of some minor issues, the truck has lived up to my expectations.
Perhaps, the Jaguar intereior is more of an aquired taste, but you do understand my point on luxury versus design. Either way, we are both stuck with, truly, some of the most dependable vehicles on the planet. Now, if only we could get the attention of someone in their design department.

GXPrado

Range Rover interiors are not even up to RX or ES levels of quality and luxury. They are horrendous for the price and fit&finish would not even qualify it for Lexus marque status.
The MB ML is about as bad a product ever made by MB (and the JD Power quality/relibility ratings glaringly show this). The Land Rover/RR has one of the lowest repeat buyer ratings of any maker on this continent.
Jaguar uses cheap drum dyed leather and at this time they are all but Ford internals on the sedans.
The Japanese, and Toyota in this case, have done alot with sensitivity to the "art" of the interior.
True decadence is in how you feel inside, the materials, and the sense of "perfection" or "no compromise" which Lexus has in spades.

I like RR's capabilities and performance but if it's sitting in the shop 25%-40% of the time or half the electronics are on the blink constantly, where is the luxury in that?

daijuk

I would have to disagree. The leather seats with the piping make the RR interior much more impressive than any of its competitors. But then again, I've always had a soft spot for piping..

Enigma869

Hey...piping works, but is no reason to be sinking $70K into a luxury SUV. Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, the LX470 is as nice as a luxury SUV can get, "dated" or not!

John from Boston

lonewolf69

er.... Piping?

daijuk

No question that the LX is a nice vehicle. But for its price, it ought to be nicer, imo. For example, for a 65k+ luxury SUV, the LX ought to have wood trim on the passenger dash. Piping may be an extra luxury feature, but the lack of wood there is a real travesty. The LX's passenger dash looks like that of a 15k car.

(Yeah, I know that the RR has little wood on the passenger side, but at least it has some. And I think that black plastic airbag panel is just plain nasty.)

GXPrado

For what an SUV was intended for, there is not much better than the LX470.
Unfortunately, luxury suv's are being measured by street-car standards now so in that regard it maybe lacking compared to others but where it really counts I don't see much else touching it.

GS3Tek

iTrader: (8)

Here you go from http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Ve...0Features.htm:
However, over time, these pipe break , just like in my GS
I'm not sure about the LX, but in the GX, there's no piping, which I like

The white stripes/linings around the seat:

daijuk

Well, at the expense of sounding like an RR fan (which I'm not - I decided against buying it), I would have to disagree.

For what an SUV was originally intended for (I assume you mean off-roading), the RR outperforms the LX.

Btw, do you think that it is inappropriate that luxury suvs are being measured to car standards?

In any case, I think the RR has a nicer interior, a nicer exterior, and better off-roading capability than the LX. However, I am leaning towards the LX for its reliability and its amenities/luxury features.

GXPrado

I am not sayine whether it's appropriate or not, it's the reality of the market now. That is why Toyota will come out with the 130 series to compete in that market.

Reliability, amenities and luxury features (which you indicate are the LX's strengths) are some big features to be lacking with the RR don't you think? The RR has horrid quality and fit&finish for this price range.
For offroading, I would argue the LX470 is a much better SUV.
1. thru 10. Reliability
11. Driving position, interior comfort, offroad capability
12. Offroad proven parts and modifications the world-over and cheaper, more reliable parts.
13. People that actually use luxury SUV's in an offroad capacity (world-wide including NATO) use only one: the 100 (Land Cruiser/LX470) That's a pretty huge endorsement of the platform.

tigmd99

What makes you think the RR is better than LX?? Is it the approach/breakover/departure angles?? If off-roading is just that, then yes, RR is better. Does the RR have a center diff lock?? NO. And this is a major problem for off-roaders!! Just ask the Land Rover Discovery owners...only in 2004 did LR put a center diff lock in Disco's. And with RR having a Torsen center diff (not as good as GX's system), YOU NEED A CENTER DIFF LOCK!

And isn't reliability an "off-road" feature?? It's also nice to be able to drive back to civilization in one piece...and not have to rely on "limp home mode". I do not trust RR's air suspension (far too many failures, even in current models)...and once the air suspension goes, you're royally screwed! The car squats to the lowest settings...this is not good if you're off-roading.

And don't get me started with unibody vs. body-on-frame. BOF is far better in off-roading...and lasts longer too!

Please do not buy into the advertisements from Land Rover...hell, i would bet that the new LR3 is better than RR...and guess what, RR is now the stepchild of LR if you read their magazines. LR3 is now the king of LR-land.

daijuk

Yep, I certainly do. Thats why I previously stated that I'm not buying the RR.

Yep, I agree with that as well (with some conditions). They dont use the LX, they use the LC. There's a pretty large price difference between the LC and the RR. Would these global off-roaders prefer the RR over the LC if price wasn't a factor? Probably. As good as the LC is, they prefer the off-roading capability of the RR.

When I was off-roading in the United Arab Emirates earlier this year, I asked alot of the dune bashers what they preferred. Every single one of them was in awe of the RR ... they would choose the RR in a second if they could afford it. (Btw, every one of them to a man drove LCs).

98Nav400

Can we now move this to the LX forum???

It's great that you guys like your rigs. This thread initally was created as a response to a GX owner asking why people choose the LX over GX--that question has been answered. It seems that this thread has now turned into the LX is better than X, or everything else. While thats great the GX forum isn't the right place for it.

Enigma869

Sorry to all that the thread got off topic. As mentioned, my original post was simply to inquire why everyone thought the GX was far more "hip" and futureistic than the LX. I guess I'll make my last statement on this issue....The LX is a far nicer vehicle in every category, period, end of story

John from Boston