Carmax warranty and LS430
10-10-16, 07:34 PM
#46
Lexus Fanatic
yeah you're right its harder and harder to find clean cars. My last two lexus' I had to go 1000 miles away to get the right car at the right price. You're also dead right about the fantasy pricers....geez some people are clueless and they'll stick with a high price for months. Dealers tend to be high but they're usually not dumb about it
150 miles takes 3:45....I had to make 4 trips. One to see car, two to pickup, and two more to fix a couple of items.....
10-13-16, 01:53 AM
#47
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: CA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
QUOTE=BradTank
Personally, I think Consumer Reports is largely right on their reliability surveys. Lexus is routinely at the top and many European brands far more issues. I know that's been my experience as well. I've had 3 Lexus in a row with all over 130k miles and they've had very few issues.
You'd be amazed how many people swear up and down that Consumer Reports gets bribed by Japanese car companies because they give low marks to other brands over the years.
Originally Posted by Johnhav430 
My BMW was on the Consumer Reports most unreliable list, and also the avoid list, from 2007-2009. In 2010 they did an about face, and it made the recommended list. I say they're unscientific--they are the only one that slammed the new VW GTI when it came out.
. .My BMW was on the Consumer Reports most unreliable list, and also the avoid list, from 2007-2009. In 2010 they did an about face, and it made the recommended list. I say they're unscientific--they are the only one that slammed the new VW GTI when it came out.QUOTE=BradTank
Personally, I think Consumer Reports is largely right on their reliability surveys. Lexus is routinely at the top and many European brands far more issues. I know that's been my experience as well. I've had 3 Lexus in a row with all over 130k miles and they've had very few issues.
You'd be amazed how many people swear up and down that Consumer Reports gets bribed by Japanese car companies because they give low marks to other brands over the years.
Most importantly, Consumer Reports is the only publication not susceptible to bribes. Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization, which means they do not have shareholders to answer to or any other motive to favor one car over another. Most importantly, they accept no advertising. No car company is hanging a massive-revenue ad campaign over their head in return for a favorable review, like they do to all of the other auto media publications.
Consumer Reports does not even accept cars from manufacturers when they perform their testing. Instead, they buy everything off of a dealer's lot, just like any other consumer. When for-profit media like Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and even bloggers like Matt Farah, /DRIVE, and Vehicle Virgins do an article, video or TV segment about a car, the manufacturer will send them cars for a time to review or fly them out to some event to let them drive their cars. With that comes flights, hotels, meals, golf, partying at night - all these perks, you can see how easy it is for a car manufacturer to pad media/writer's pockets in return for a good review.
10-13-16, 05:21 AM
#48
Lexus Fanatic
I agree with @BradTank about Consumer Reports. It's the only publication that actually uses scientific [method] testing. All of its testing is available for peer-review. Consumer Reports performs objective tests, rather than relying entirely on writer's opinions or tests lacking accepted standards like most auto publications.
Most importantly, Consumer Reports is the only publication not susceptible to bribes. Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization, which means they do not have shareholders to answer to or any other motive to favor one car over another. Most importantly, they accept no advertising. No car company is hanging a massive-revenue ad campaign over their head in return for a favorable review, like they do to all of the other auto media publications.
Consumer Reports does not even accept cars from manufacturers when they perform their testing. Instead, they buy everything off of a dealer's lot, just like any other consumer. When for-profit media like Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and even bloggers like Matt Farah, /DRIVE, and Vehicle Virgins do an article, video or TV segment about a car, the manufacturer will send them cars for a time to review or fly them out to some event to let them drive their cars. With that comes flights, hotels, meals, golf, partying at night - all these perks, you can see how easy it is for a car manufacturer to pad media/writer's pockets in return for a good review.
Most importantly, Consumer Reports is the only publication not susceptible to bribes. Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization, which means they do not have shareholders to answer to or any other motive to favor one car over another. Most importantly, they accept no advertising. No car company is hanging a massive-revenue ad campaign over their head in return for a favorable review, like they do to all of the other auto media publications.
Consumer Reports does not even accept cars from manufacturers when they perform their testing. Instead, they buy everything off of a dealer's lot, just like any other consumer. When for-profit media like Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and even bloggers like Matt Farah, /DRIVE, and Vehicle Virgins do an article, video or TV segment about a car, the manufacturer will send them cars for a time to review or fly them out to some event to let them drive their cars. With that comes flights, hotels, meals, golf, partying at night - all these perks, you can see how easy it is for a car manufacturer to pad media/writer's pockets in return for a good review.
It generally isn't hard to recommend Lexus, and determine that a S550 MB is avg. to below avg for reliability.
Look at all the common issues to LS430s that this forum has identified--I bought a used car and it seems to have the very same issues. You don't need consumer reports to validate what is fact.
We purchased the bagless vacuum cleaner that they touted, and it broke in 60 days, had to ship it out for warranty repair. Fluke? imho no, they recommended it with limited data that was neither reliable, nor valid. Again, the fact that you can do a 180 with your recommendations, don't we all wish we could do that at our jobs? my .02
edit:
but I know what you're saying, amazon reviews are riddled with 5 star ratings from those who received free product...
p.s. by coincidence, we put the CR "recommended" battery into my wife's GM SUV. Let's see how that pans out. #1 was a AGM by Interstate costing $300. #2 was the Bosch lead acid version for $140, we ended up with #2. I do admit, while not scientific, very few of us have the monies to buy 10 different batteries and test them, so an unscientific test may be better than none....
Last edited by Johnhav430; 10-13-16 at 05:26 AM.
10-13-16, 12:36 PM
#49
Honestly, it's my opinion that the sample size is too small. My BMW is a real life example--they put it on the avoid list from 2007-2009, and the recommended list in 2010. The car is the same. Can you imagine if drug testing were run like that? The fact that they slammed the then new 2015 GTI, when every other publication raved about it, tells me there is a "cowboy" mentality there.
It seems to me a pretty easy explanation that the BMW likely made some quality improvements within the same model run.
So in 2007-2009, there could have been a defect that kept giving the model low reliability scores that BMW corrected for the 2010 model run. Even if it's the "same" car, parts on that car can be changed and improved. There could have been an issue at the factory and they were able to tighten up the quality control in a certain area.
I'm sure you've hear the axiom to never buy a "first year" model of car because they usually have teething problems.
I just don't think you can dismiss their entire operation because they changed a rating after a few years, even if it's the same car.
I'm sure there's imperfections as not every car made gets surveyed, but it's probably as good as it's going to get.
Also, cars that have "inferior" reliability compared to other cars can get the "Recommended" label put on them.
A good example I was reading in an older CR was the Toyota 4Runner. It has the highest reliability rating, but the staff there thinks it's antiquated with its features, so they don't recommend it. But say a Ford Explorer is well liked for the way it drives but only has an average reliability rating. The Ford will get recommended over the Toyota.
On the flip side, there have been cars the CR staff really likes the way it drives and the features, but the poor reliability history keep them from recommending it.
It's a give and take that's imperfect, but I wouldn't dismiss everything they say.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
riknchar
SC430 - 2nd Gen (2001-2010)
11
09-14-17 02:25 PM
caesosa
GX - 1st Gen (2003-2009)
5
01-13-14 08:41 PM