Quality of interior materials is still low.
03-12-12, 04:31 AM
#16
My neighbors RR has been in the shop 4 times in the six months he has owned it.
Worst is the loaner they gave him would not start and I had to take him to work in my LX
I have owned 5 LX470 and three LX570 and could count my problems one one hand. Non of my LX units have ever left me on the side of the road or failed to get me where I needed to go.
That is worth something to me.
Worst is the loaner they gave him would not start and I had to take him to work in my LX
I have owned 5 LX470 and three LX570 and could count my problems one one hand. Non of my LX units have ever left me on the side of the road or failed to get me where I needed to go.
That is worth something to me.
03-12-12, 05:46 AM
#17
Pit Crew
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know too many people who have RR that are always breaking down. My friends always tell me how they are scared to go to far off the beaten path because of reliability issues.
As for the interior, to each his own. The RR is very nice, but so is the LX.
So where exactly do you feel the LX is laking? What specifics?
As for the interior, to each his own. The RR is very nice, but so is the LX.
So where exactly do you feel the LX is laking? What specifics?
I know people who have had trouble with the LX. I can play that game too.At the end of the day if the Range Rover is soooo unreliable as you and some of the posters on this site lead people to believe, it still would not OUTSELL your beloved LX. The Range has been around for over 40 years. At some point, people would have stopped spending $100K for the SUV.
All I wanted to do was share my experience and decision to buy another Rover. Happy motoring!
03-12-12, 05:55 AM
#18
Pit Crew
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, interesting. It is obviously so subjective. I never went with the RR for I perceive it a low-quality, unattractive vehicle. Certainly checking one out at the dealership and going for a test drive re-enforced that impression. On the other hand, the LX won over by the build and design quality, and the superior interior. To each its own, as they consistently say BTW, same goes for the G-klass. Even though I owned one in the past, I would not be able to say it is comparable with the LX. Technically - yes, but once you experience both and live with both for a while - no.
BTW, same goes for the G-klass. Even though I owned one in the past, I would not be able to say it is comparable with the LX. Technically - yes, but once you experience both and live with both for a while - no.As far as the interior, for the most part, you can customize the interior of a Range to look almost anyway you want, if you're willing to spend the cash. You CANNOT do this with an LX.
The G Class is simply better off road than the LX. The on pavement experience is the total opposite.
03-12-12, 02:08 PM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
Hmmm, I noticed you even commented in another recent thread that you did not like the interior of the LX. You should tell your friends to buy an LX I know people who have had trouble with the LX. I can play that game too.
At the end of the day if the Range Rover is soooo unreliable as you and some of the posters on this site lead people to believe, it still would not OUTSELL your beloved LX. The Range has been around for over 40 years. At some point, people would have stopped spending $100K for the SUV.
All I wanted to do was share my experience and decision to buy another Rover. Happy motoring!
I know people who have had trouble with the LX. I can play that game too.At the end of the day if the Range Rover is soooo unreliable as you and some of the posters on this site lead people to believe, it still would not OUTSELL your beloved LX. The Range has been around for over 40 years. At some point, people would have stopped spending $100K for the SUV.
All I wanted to do was share my experience and decision to buy another Rover. Happy motoring!
Compared to the LX, the RR lacks some important options in my opinion. The RR lacks 4 zone climate control, third row seating, a pre crash syatem as well as a bunch of other options that are not standard.
Also, the LX is a superior off-road vehicle to the RR.
Then there is reliability which the LX is far superior.
03-12-12, 02:36 PM
#20
What a humorous post. The Range Rover is ugly compared to what, certainly not the LX. There are ACTUAL LX owners who are not completely sold on the looks of the LX. They bought the vehicle for the perceived reliability and deal with the looks. Several of those buyers have posted on this forum.
As far as the interior, for the most part, you can customize the interior of a Range to look almost anyway you want, if you're willing to spend the cash. You CANNOT do this with an LX.
The G Class is simply better off road than the LX. The on pavement experience is the total opposite.
As far as the interior, for the most part, you can customize the interior of a Range to look almost anyway you want, if you're willing to spend the cash. You CANNOT do this with an LX.
The G Class is simply better off road than the LX. The on pavement experience is the total opposite.
Well, I am one of the LX owners who is not sold on the looks of the 570. Still, even less so sold on the looks of the RR. Nothing particularly wrong with it, just uninspiring and cheap looking vehicle. Sorry, don't intend to offend - I stated that the tastes are so subjective. This is how it looks to me, and why I never got one. Well, the looks I could live with.. barely, but why bother?
As for the G being better off-road than the LX... dont' know if you owned one, but I would not make such statement. The G is excellent off-road, but by far not better. Otherwise I would have kept it (and I still do a fair bit of off-roading, did a lot more in the past). I'd be curious to talk to you after a full day wheeling in the bunnies. Even RR would be less punishing on you. I'll just not survive for the full day.
03-12-12, 02:40 PM
#21
To me an immediate "no-go" is the independent suspension on all four sides. This is the reason I'll go back to the G-klass first, before I start looking at the RR. It was a shame when Toyota introduced the ISF for the 100 series and the LX.
03-12-12, 03:22 PM
#22
Lexus Fanatic
But at least Toyota still has the solid axle on the rear of the LX570.
Last edited by Toys4RJill; 03-12-12 at 04:11 PM.
03-12-12, 04:29 PM
#23
Yes, it the IFS is at the front only. Which is a sure way to make it cheaper, comfortable and more "car-like". But this is not what I am personally looking in a 4x4. If I wanted a vehicle that rides like a car, I would buy a car. Oh, wait, this is exactly why I'm looking for an LS600h now
03-13-12, 07:04 PM
#24
Lexus Fanatic
Yes, it the IFS is at the front only. Which is a sure way to make it cheaper, comfortable and more "car-like". But this is not what I am personally looking in a 4x4. If I wanted a vehicle that rides like a car, I would buy a car. Oh, wait, this is exactly why I'm looking for an LS600h now
But seriously, an $80k Lexus should not have a solid front and rear.
03-13-12, 07:54 PM
#25
oh yes, the IFS is cheaper, even if it is counterintuitive. All the while it is a more sophisticated setup, more conformable and better on-road handling. Every engineering design is a compromise, however. The rigid axle is beneficial for off-road, heavy duty and where the ultimate simplicity/reliability/ruggedness is required. And to me the LX is what it is - a real LandCruiser, one of the best 4x4 available anywhere in the world. For car-like, or minivan-like, or other things of that kind I'm happy to look elsewhere. But for what the LandCruiser brand used to offer I'd rather continue to look at the LandCruisers. And kick, scream and complain when Toyota takes the design elsewhere, before taking the refuge back in the G-klass. Porsche and Mercedes snobbishness (or having a vision, sense of direction, and staying true to it you can say) is what Toyota does not have unfortunately.
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?
Last edited by AKoch; 03-13-12 at 08:04 PM.
03-14-12, 06:57 AM
#26
Lexus Fanatic
oh yes, the IFS is cheaper, even if it is counterintuitive. All the while it is a more sophisticated setup, more conformable and better on-road handling. Every engineering design is a compromise, however. The rigid axle is beneficial for off-road, heavy duty and where the ultimate simplicity/reliability/ruggedness is required. And to me the LX is what it is - a real LandCruiser, one of the best 4x4 available anywhere in the world. For car-like, or minivan-like, or other things of that kind I'm happy to look elsewhere. But for what the LandCruiser brand used to offer I'd rather continue to look at the LandCruisers. And kick, scream and complain when Toyota takes the design elsewhere, before taking the refuge back in the G-klass. Porsche and Mercedes snobbishness (or having a vision, sense of direction, and staying true to it you can say) is what Toyota does not have unfortunately.
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?
03-14-12, 10:43 AM
#27
Oh My business development and sales (or lack of progress there) bugs me, need to pass a good number of exams in the near future worries me. This thread/forum - is only an outlet to have some fun outside of work. It is actually great when some passionate folks like kwr drop in and make it a bit more alive. Otherwise it goes into the mode "look ma such a great truck I got".
My business development and sales (or lack of progress there) bugs me, need to pass a good number of exams in the near future worries me. This thread/forum - is only an outlet to have some fun outside of work. It is actually great when some passionate folks like kwr drop in and make it a bit more alive. Otherwise it goes into the mode "look ma such a great truck I got".
08-18-12, 07:39 AM
#28
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what the OP has to say, he said the Lexus doesn't have the right materials in the vehicle to make it $90k. The Japanese will never get the meaning of true luxury, why didn't Toyota buy Range Rover and bring consistent reliability to true luxury?
I have always loved LX's, got my 13' last month but Lexus needs to atleast offer leather dashboards and Alcantara headliners as an option. My sticker was $90k, why not spend $2k extra for those options??
I have always loved LX's, got my 13' last month but Lexus needs to atleast offer leather dashboards and Alcantara headliners as an option. My sticker was $90k, why not spend $2k extra for those options??
08-30-12, 04:39 AM
#29
I concur, all Lexus craftsmanship and quality has been drastically reduced due to cost. You notice how everything is now more lighter and not as solid as the pre2006 Lexus models, seats are way smaller, which is odd considering that there are more and more people becoming more obese.
08-30-12, 07:19 AM
#30
Pole Position
I agree 100% - RR is like Rx350 for peeps with $$$
oh yes, the IFS is cheaper, even if it is counterintuitive. All the while it is a more sophisticated setup, more conformable and better on-road handling. Every engineering design is a compromise, however. The rigid axle is beneficial for off-road, heavy duty and where the ultimate simplicity/reliability/ruggedness is required. And to me the LX is what it is - a real LandCruiser, one of the best 4x4 available anywhere in the world. For car-like, or minivan-like, or other things of that kind I'm happy to look elsewhere. But for what the LandCruiser brand used to offer I'd rather continue to look at the LandCruisers. And kick, scream and complain when Toyota takes the design elsewhere, before taking the refuge back in the G-klass. Porsche and Mercedes snobbishness (or having a vision, sense of direction, and staying true to it you can say) is what Toyota does not have unfortunately.
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?
If you'd rather have an IFS all around, why not to take the next step(s):
- why carry the extra weight of the ladder frame around? Drop it, go unibody
- there is no reason to haul the transfer case around, extra weight, not benefit
- no need for manual lockers (ah, wait, already dropped in 99 in NA market)
- hey, why even have that much clearance? Go lower, the handling is sure better
- why bother with an off-road-optimized engine, we sure can do with a higher compression/higher HP/better fuel economy
Apparently the LandCruiser concept is not what many (though not all) Lexus buyers are looking for. I think for those a larger version of the RX with better leather would make more sense. Oh, wait, have we arrived at the RR now?