Agree ... used to use PayPal for this purpose where an automatic payment could be stopped, but no longer. There is also a site ... Privacy.com ... that allows shutting down automatic charges. Having to protect oneself from Consumer Reports playing "the game" only reinforces my opinion that CR is not about consumer advocacy ... maybe once existed, but that has been decades long gone.

 

CR was the king at one point

 

They do disclose the minimum sample size, it's at least 100 vehicles or they don't publish results.

CR isn't perfect, but taken as one data point among many others available to buyers I think it's still a valuable resource for auto buying.

 

A (minimum) 100 sample size is not statistically representative ... while being reported by those that are invariably non-technical. CR is at best an "indicator" ... and not in any way absolute. Multiple data sources is always the best in terms of due diligence ...

Just like JD Powers "initial (90-day) quality" ratings ... a reminant of the dark past when the 'Big-3" delivered cars with missing parts. Close to no exception ... car makers today deliver exceptional products. It really is now more a matter of reliability over time ... so JD Powers also needs to step into the current century as does Consumer Reports.

 

No one said anything is absolute or perfect. CR feedback on my personal vehicles, my extended network including a broad overview of Lexus vehicle issues posted on this forum has been generally accurate. Their sample size is generally larger than 100 also, that's the minimum but it is a also very detailed survey which you don't get from many other sources.

Technical sources are also not absolute. For example, purely technical feedback sources overlook daily use issues & problems encountered by the actual vehicle owners because they don't spend nearly enough time in the car to recognize usage concerns or randomly occurring nits. Only the fixes for stuff that breaks enough to get brought in to get fixed.

However, I think we're agreeing, use all the sources you can view to make a decision.

 

^ nice that you can administrate (make disappear) your own digressions ... as well as any reasonable response to such ...

 

I made a joke about your dislike of CR, you complained and I immediately addressed your concern. If you want I’ll ask the moderator team to review. Just PM me.

 

No need ... just a calibration ... that "LOL" at the end of a disparaging comment qualifies that comment as acceptable from an administration standpoint ... just asking an honest question since this appears inconsistent.

 

No calibration needed of course that doesn’t always qualify. My comment also was not disparaging, it was clearly poking fun at your extreme dislike of CR. If another member posted what I did (lol or otherwise), it was reported and I reviewed it, I would have not taken action. However you said it did, so I immediately edited to respect your concern.

pm me if you want to discuss further, let’s get this thread back on track

 

Too many folks see CR as THE final word in consumer information and they just are not. To be in the population that is surveyed, you’d have to be one of the 7 million digital or print subscribers they have, have purchased your GX new and have answered the survey. Those hurdles are steep, just 2.1% of the country pays for CR so that small population is their starting point. I’m sure their Subaru data is valid as heck but not their GX or LX data. (Snarkism font needed there)

Consider that Lexus GX sales represent about .15 of 1% of new car sales and CR represents 2.1% of the population, what is the likelihood of their sample size being large enough to be statistically reliable? I don’t have a nanometer or microscope handy so I can’t picture that but it ain’t large.

if this forum required you to be the original purchaser of your GX before posting, this would be a thinly used forum.



My findings on CR are that they do not let folks know just how unreliable their methods are and they live on the their 1980s customer base to sustain themselves. Am giving htem a black circle for reliability.

 

Ratings change year over year for pretty obvious reasons. Two very easily understandable ones are because people buy used / pre owned GXs and fill out the survey for those past model years where they didn’t get a survey previously for that vehicle or perhaps the initial issue was already fixed under warranty. As most folks understand, manufacturers also improve at producing better quality vehicles after the initial launch years and they correct problems/defects and refine their build process.

The minimum they use before printing results is 100 surveys, not 3. This forum and every other source also only consist of subsets of data, each with their own problems. It’s ludicrous to think a manufacturer is going to release their “Lexus database” of every discovered vehicle defect and encountered problem to the public. That would be fraught with opportunities for obfuscation and also damage their sales. The sources need to be independent

I totally agree more transparency would be good for their published results (like exact sample size) but they do have quite a bit of detail on their approach

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars...q-a1099917197/

IMO Sample size CR uses is not so small to be insignificant It’s 100+ respondents and they don't restrict their survey to only new vehicle sales, the survey is for a date range of a specific model. For example if you look at the chart image in the first post above there are two years 2014 & 2018 noted with all “ * ” where they did not get enough surveys returned to publish. For brand new models they show a predicted reliability based on past model surveys, shared components with other vehicles, etc. or simply don’t publish if their data is insufficient. Another past example is for years they did not publish any Tesla data because they simply didn’t have enough surveys or history. For their new model test drive articles they have a team that purchases randomly selected vehicles from dealers in a broad geographic area to keep it independent from manufacturers giving them hand selected ringers.

No one here (including me) has said they are the final word and I don’t know anyone who relies solely on CR as their only source to make a decision buy a vehicle. If they are a member here on our community they clearly don’t. However IMO CR is a decent data point when vehicle shopping, and there are also a lot of other great sources buyers should also look at as well to get broad feedback on model history, usability etc.

I haven’t seen many folks railing about CR talking about the specific better alternatives out there (beyond this forum)? Tell us what are they and why they are great? What’s ideal about their sample size and methodology? I suspect there will be shortcomings just like CR to be aware of. Consumer Reports isn’t perfect for sure, but they aren’t the devil many make them out to be.

 

No one said CR was "the devil" ... just pointing out the limitations of any data source not being absolute. All information is useful, but it is important that one understands the limitations of this data based on the methodology and information source.

For me, I prefer data from professional sources ... AllData ... Identifix ... Mitchell 1 ... while not rolled up into a pretty chart ... the information is as close to root-cause as possible, with specific repair information ... versus "Transmission" being color coded based on (non-expert) consumer input.

 

I also don't think anyone ever claimed using CR as a data source was absolute or unlimited either...OP was just sharing what he saw and said it looked pretty good.

ASE, are those sources listed above useful and available for an everyday consumer who might want to research purchasing a new or used GX ? I only recognize them as mechanics resources for repairs and primarily used by technicians. I bet they’d be great to fix something broken on a vehicle but don’t think they take surveys of owners just notes on those items that get brought in to be repaired and details how to fix them. Maybe I’m wrong but I have never once heard of using these as a great resource for non mechanic folks to use for buying a car.

Also googling they have a pretty steep cost associated with them, am I reading that wrong? $189 per month for alldata repair and identifix, $184/mo for Mitchell 1?!!! Not doubting these are great resources for an auto tech, but unless I’m missing something not at all designed to be a purchasing tool and have a really steep cost of entry vs cost of a magazine, google search or trip to the library (I bet some libraries also have free access to these sites available which would be useful).

I assume you subscribe to these for work, can you take a screen shot on a 2015 GX Engine or Electrical topics that shows there are no issues as noted problem areas in the CR report above as an example? Is CR wrong about those issues?

 

These all used to be free without subscription up until about 5-years ago ... but can apparently join monthly. Since I'm not in the immediate market ... I do not have an active subscription. It's worth taking a look ... the depth of information is impressive ... at least that was the case with AllData ...

 

The wild swings to me are not representative of the GX’s but that of a small sample with a rant. I would suggest that their subscriber population is not representative of the US consumer. I’ve not liked them since they skewered the Suzuki Samauri, the Isuzu Trooper and even the 2010 Lexus GX. It doesn’t take a physicist to know that if you take a tall vehicle and yank the steering wheel while at speed, it might be a bit of a handful. Taking their word is like listening to Tony Romo tell us how the quarterback is thinking in the Super Bowl. An opinion not based on experience, just a hunch.

Was not aware that they allowed owners of used ones to participate, so I learned something today.

We’ll not agree and that is fine. I’ve never subscribed and never will. Do not know of any better sources other than forums. The Lexus has a J vin and that says everything. Deming taught them well & their vehicles are about as close to flawless as humanly possible.