# CR: Lexus SUV "safety risk"



## legalskier (Apr 13, 2010)

In case anyone is considering one, the Lexus GX 460 has been labeled a safety risk by Consumer Reports.

_NEW YORK – Consumer Reports has given the Lexus GX 460 SUV a rare "Don't Buy" warning, saying a problem that occurred during routine handling tests could lead to a rollover accident in real-world driving. In the latest blow to Toyota's reputation, the magazine said that during a test of the vehicle's performance during unusual turns, the rear of the vehicle slid until it was nearly sideways before the electronic stability control system kicked in. Consumer Reports said in real-world driving, such a scenario could cause a rollover accident. As a result, the magazine has given the seven-seat SUV a "Don't Buy: Safety Risk" label until the problem is fixed.***_
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413...pY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDY29uc3VtZXJyZXBv

For once I'm happy I could never afford one.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 13, 2010)

I'd say now would be a relaly good time to buy one. The media will go bananas, dealers will have an over supply, prices will be slashed. Just like when gas prices went nuts...great time buy something with a really large engine.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2010)

legalskier said:


> In case anyone is considering one, the Lexus GX 460 has been labeled a safety risk by Consumer Reports.
> 
> _NEW YORK – Consumer Reports has given the Lexus GX 460 SUV a rare "Don't Buy" warning, saying a problem that occurred during routine handling tests could lead to a rollover accident in real-world driving. In the latest blow to Toyota's reputation, the magazine said that during a test of the vehicle's performance during unusual turns, the rear of the vehicle slid until it was nearly sideways before the electronic stability control system kicked in. Consumer Reports said in real-world driving, such a scenario could cause a rollover accident. As a result, the magazine has given the seven-seat SUV a "Don't Buy: Safety Risk" label until the problem is fixed.***_
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413...pY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDY29uc3VtZXJyZXBv
> ...



Not that I care one way or the other, but how long ago was it that no vehicles had any sort of electronic stability controls?  Were they all considered unsafe?  How about if people learn how to drive, and not rely on electronic band-aides.  Ever hear of counter-steering?? :roll:

To me a vehicles inability to prevent it's driver from doing stupid stuff does not make it unsafe..


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2010)

BTW - In case you couldn't tell; I think the people at Consumer Reports are a bunch of effing morons with their heads up their asses.  In the rare occasions that I happen to see one their 'reports', on whatever, I tend to think the opposite is true, unless I know better otherwise...

EDIT: I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't put much stock on their reports:


> Consumer Reports said the last vehicle to receive such a safety warning was the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited, a large SUV. In that case, testers said the wheels lifted off the road during standard avoidance-maneuver tests, which also posed a rollover risk.
> 
> At the time, Mitsubishi disputed the magazine's findings and did not make any modifications to the vehicle, Mitsubishi spokesman Dan Irvin said. The designation appeared to have little effect on the Montero's sales, which increased overall during the second half of 2001.
> 
> The Montero remained on sale in the U.S. until 2007 and continues to be sold overseas as the Mitsubishi Pajero.


Montero owners don't either, apparently.  Not that I necessarily want to associate myself with Montero owners, but them's the breaks I guess..


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 13, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Not that I care one way or the other, but how long ago was it that no vehicles had any sort of electronic stability controls?  Were they all considered unsafe?  How about if people learn how to drive, and not rely on electronic band-aides.  Ever hear of counter-steering?? :roll:
> 
> To me a vehicles inability to prevent it's driver from doing stupid stuff does not make it unsafe..



I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.



I get that.  My point is not to rely on the stability control.  How many vehicles are there on the road with no stability control (aside from the driver) that people manage to keep on the road, and upright?  The nice to have feature may not work, but that doesn't make it unsafe, IMHO.  The driver should react to correct the situation before the vehicle get's sideways.  If they're incapable of that then perhaps they shouldn't be driving such a behemoth.

EDIT: I have no idea how big this thing is, I just assume it's large because it's a SUV


----------



## marcski (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't know about you guys, but that SUV ALWAYS looked like it has a super high center of gravity. I never would have bought one before or now.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 13, 2010)

I've been driving high center of gravity SUVs since 1986.   With any heavy and top-heavy car, you have to drive it appropriately.   One would expect that a tarted up Toyota Land Cruiser would fall in that category.

I pay attention to CR reliablity data.   I discount the rest of their automobile report since it's pretty clear that they hate cars and view them as an appliance.


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2010)

Picture from the LA Times:







Car and Driver calls it a "a gilded version of the Toyota 4Runner"

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_lexus_gx460-first_drive_review

Does this mean that the 4Runner has the same problem?


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> Does this mean that the 4Runner has the same problem?



In the full article linked to in the OP CR claims that the 4Runner did not exhibit the "problem" in their tests.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> Picture from the LA Times:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not necessarily as an article I was reading about it says that the 4runner is 4" shorter height wise than the Lexus.

My business partner's wife drives the 2 year old version of that lexus, and it's one of the few vehicles other than a big 'ol 250/2500 or 350/3500 series pick up truck where my 6'3" frame really needs to use the running boards to get up into it!


----------



## marcski (Apr 13, 2010)

Geoff said:


> I've been driving high center of gravity SUVs since 1986.   With any heavy and top-heavy car, you have to drive it appropriately.   One would expect that a tarted up Toyota Land Cruiser would fall in that category.
> 
> I pay attention to CR reliablity data.   I discount the rest of their automobile report since it's pretty clear that they hate cars and view them as an appliance.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Land Cruiser has a wider wheel base than the Lexus 470...which would make it more stable.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 13, 2010)

marcski said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Land Cruiser has a wider wheel base than the Lexus 470...which would make it more stable.



Dunno.   I clearly don't have a clue since I thought the Lexus under discussion was the fancy Land Cruiser, not the fancy 4Runner.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 13, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I think the key here is that the stability control doesn't kick in until the car is already sideways. It should be doing something before the car gets there.


So if someone driving a car with a lane departure warning system jerks the wheel and cannot react to the warning in time to avoid leaving the road, is it the warning system's fault it didn't anticipate the maneuver?

It may be an incompetent implementation of stability control, but that doesn't make the entire vehicle unsafe. ANY car will oversteer with throttle lift in a corner (or braking - which drives 90% of my left foot braking.) I lifted throttle in response to understeer once - in a '99 Cougar. One of the scariest moments in my life. Never made that mistake again.

But drivers can't be troubled to learn anything about vehicle dynamics.

Just like the unintended acceleration, this is partly Toyota's fault. Not because of the current vehicles, but because they're a prime driver in the move to thoughtless driving, of vehicles as transportation appliances.


----------



## marcski (Apr 13, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Dunno.   I clearly don't have a clue since I thought the Lexus under discussion was the fancy Land Cruiser, not the fancy 4Runner.



yeah the one under discussion is the GX.  Which is the one that just looks unstable to me with a high center of gravity.  The LX is the glorified Landcruiser which has a wider wheelbase and at least to my eye seems more stable.

And now I see this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/14auto.html?hp


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Not necessarily as an article I was reading about it says that the 4runner is 4" shorter height wise than the Lexus.
> 
> My business partner's wife drives the 2 year old version of that lexus, and it's one of the few vehicles other than a big 'ol 250/2500 or 350/3500 series pick up truck where my 6'3" frame really needs to use the running boards to get up into it!


Got it...not a re-badged 4Runner.  Probably a good thing for the 4Runner...


----------



## mondeo (Apr 13, 2010)

marcski said:


> And now I see this:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/14auto.html?hp


Probably because people don't know how to shift into neutral, so they're too freaked out about appearing soft on safety.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 13, 2010)

Huh. A SUV that could possibly roll over if not driven correctly. Who whuddathinkit??? I agree with bvibert on this one. I am concerned that a computer stability thingy failing to work correctly brands a car as do not buy. The driver should be able to recover the car or shouldn't have put the vehicle in danger of a roll over to begin with. If you need a computer to save you from a roll over... you're driving the vehicle wrong. And I think I would trust my instinct more than a computer program... but then again I don't think I would have put myself in a position to ever need to split that hair. Then again, I don't drive top heavy vehicles that are likely to have roll over issues.


----------



## Edd (Apr 13, 2010)

CR is likely looking at this from a value perspective on top of safety.  This vehicle is pricey, and less expensive cars don't have the issue they claim exists here.  So, in the interest of protecting the customer's wallet as well as his/her life, they are motivated to steer people toward cars without this problem.

I don't find CR to be morons so much as many, many drivers who demonstrate their lack of intelligence when the roads are slippery.  ESC, imho, is a very good thing.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 14, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Then again, I don't drive top heavy vehicles that are likely to have roll over issues.



I do.  I'm not surprised at all when I see SUVs upside-down in the median strip during every snow storm.   They are heavy cars with a high center of gravity.   Stability control may work OK on dry roads.  It's not going to help when some moron is out-driving the car on an icy road.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 14, 2010)

We're weeni-fying cars these days. If it rains, the wipers come on for you, if you leave your lights on, they shut off for you. Why bother checking your tire pressure? You have a warning light for that too. 

As mentioned, vehicles have become soft, they issolate you from the driving experience and are now just a way to get you from point a to point b. 

The whole Toyota thing has me puzzled. I'm not an engineer; just a weekend gearhead. There's no way the engine on a regular ol production car can overpower the brakes. Can the pedal stick to the floormat? Sure can! But is this something the driver can overcome with a little level headedness? Yes. Shift into neutral, mash the brakes and pull over as safely as possible. Then shut it down. Granted, it's a bit more stressful when it happens. But if people can compose themselves enough to use their friggin phone......

Kevin Wilson had a great bit about things lately in AutoWeek:



> Maybe this train left the station nearly 50 years ago, when Ralph Nader convinced America that if a Corvair crashed, it was General Motors' fault and only GM's fault. If it's your Corvair that just crashed, this can be a comforting illusion. No less so if it's your Toyota. But it's an illusion all the same



It's a great read: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100409/FREE/304099999


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 14, 2010)

Glenn said:


> We're weeni-fying cars these days. If it rains, the wipers come on for you, if you leave your lights on, they shut off for you. Why bother checking your tire pressure? You have a warning light for that too.
> 
> As mentioned, vehicles have become soft, they issolate you from the driving experience and are now just a way to get you from point a to point b.
> 
> ...



We're dumbing down lots of stuff as a whole to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 14, 2010)

RootDKJ said:


> We're dumbing down lots of stuff as a whole to the lowest common denominator.



You mean like grooming the crap out of all the trails on a mountain?


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 14, 2010)

I turn the stability control in my car off most of the time. The MB engineers were kind enough to put the warning light just out of my line of sight.

I think stability control is mandated standard equipment starting in 2012, or something like that. Kind of like tire pressure sensors already are. Saw a show a while ago where tehy said cars are 40% more efficient today than they were 50 years ago, but they also weigh 40% more (numbers are approximate) because of all the safty equipment, etc. So, the advances in efficiency are negated by the increase in nannification.

Of course, the one time I needed airbags, I'm glad they were standard.


----------



## severine (Apr 14, 2010)

Stability control? Really?

My Blazer is probably a "safety risk" being that it's top-heavy but I haven't rolled it in the 6 years I've had it. Apparently, that's miraculous! People need to learn to drive. :roll:

Tire pressure sensors? They're mandated? :lol: What a waste... I bet that adds to costs for replacing tires, too, because of these gadgets. I think I'll stick with my used cars, thank-you-very-much.


----------



## hammer (Apr 14, 2010)

severine said:


> Tire pressure sensors? They're mandated? :lol: What a waste... I bet that adds to costs for replacing tires, too, because of these gadgets. I think I'll stick with my used cars, thank-you-very-much.


When I looked into winter tires, I saw that adding sensors would add over $200 to the cots of a set of tires on my Volvo not including the cost to calibrate to the car's onboard system...it's either that or deal with the warning light for several months. :roll:

I believe that those were mandated after the problems with Ford Explorers rolling over after their tires failed.  Let's see...drive a top-heavy SUV at 70+ MPH with visibly low tire pressure and you should be fine, right?


----------



## Geoff (Apr 14, 2010)

severine said:


> Tire pressure sensors? They're mandated? :lol: What a waste... I bet that adds to costs for replacing tires, too, because of these gadgets. I think I'll stick with my used cars, thank-you-very-much.



I actually think they're a good feature.   I like having the big advance warning that I've developed a puncture.   Nothing worse than changing a flat on the side of the road at night during a winter monsoon.   It doesn't add to the cost of replacing tires.   It does add to the cost of getting a winter setup.   The Bosch system on my VW is $47.00 per sensor purchased over the internet from Tire Rack.


----------



## o3jeff (Apr 14, 2010)

The TPS sensor are a PITA, especially in the winter when the tire pressure fluctuate quite a bit, ended up giving up and just driving with the light on.


----------



## hammer (Apr 14, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> The TPS sensor are a PITA, especially in the winter when the tire pressure fluctuate quite a bit, ended up giving up and just driving with the light on.


I didn't have problems during the winter months with mine...

I don't mind having it at all, just don't like the idea that it's mandated because people don't bother to do basic maintenance like check tire pressures or even visually inspect their tires on a regular basis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2010)

bvibert said:


> You mean like grooming the crap out of all the trails on a mountain?



:lol:


----------



## bvibert (Apr 14, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> :lol:



I was getting worried that one was going to slip by unnoticed.  I guess the groomer crowd isn't reading this thread... :lol:


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 14, 2010)

bvibert said:


> You mean like grooming the crap out of all the trails on a mountain?


Nah, that's just for the speed demons.


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 14, 2010)

This news comes as no surprise to me.  I just took possession of a 2wd Tacoma as my company vehicle in January, and the first thing I did while driving to work in the snow was give it a goose in the butt as I pulled into the quarry to see what this new-fangled  "traction control" was all about.  The result:  I had that little pickup in a full-on pedal to the floor powerslide for about 4 seconds (a good 50-60 feet or more) before the warning system went off and the computer tried to slow my progress.  I concluded that in the event of a real emergency I will be putting ZERO faith in some on-board computer and instead drive the way I was taught.

Consumer reports only flipped a lid so that someone somewhere might still find their work relevant.  With so many free online sources available for real opinions on the stuff I buy, I don't even look twice at any link belonging to consumer reports because: a) I'm too cheap to pay and b) most of the time their flat wrong about their recommendations, IMHO.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 14, 2010)

The more I think about this, the more I wonder about the journalistic integrity of a media powerhouse like CR labeling something as a "Do Not Buy". CR is so big that their word has caused a car company to stop selling the vehicles and even if they didn't, no one would ever buy one any ways (until, at least, Toyota submits a car for a retest). All because a computer could not correct a bizarre situation that the over overwhelming vast majority of drivers will never find themselves in and most that do find themselves in could probably correct themselves.

Additionally, CR has a vested interest in a big PR piece like this because A) it sells subscriptions and increases ad revenue due to exposure and B) gets more people reading their mag and C) makes them look like they really care about the consumer enhancing their image and reputation. They couldn't just flag "Computer Safety" as having a failing grade lowering the overall grade? But no, a complete absolute DO NOT BUY. Is that responsible? Was their test repeatable by independent sources? Is the incident something that will likely be experienced on the road by more than a small handful of dangerous drivers? Did CR contact Toyota about the issue before throwing out a DO NOT BUY warning? Did CR test multiple cars? Could this be a fluke? 

And how about the video in the above link?  I have NEVER taken a turn like that, I can't imagine ever needing to either. Toyota reports that no roll overs due to this issue have been reported. HELLO! Lots of questions here, IMO. CR's label on this car should be scrutinized with a high degree of skepticism, it seems an over the top move (especially given this is technology that is not even included on so many cars already on the road, HELLO!).


----------



## mondeo (Apr 14, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> All because a computer could not correct a bizarre situation that the over overwhelming vast majority of drivers will never find themselves in and most that do find themselves in could probably correct themselves.


I doubt most drivers could correct sudden lift-throttle oversteer themselves. Especially Lexus drivers. They're driving a Toyota, the only time they nail the throttle is when they want to hit the brakes after they've reached retirement age. Yet a healthy dose of throttle is what's needed in that case. As I mentioned earlier, I've lifted suddenly mid-turn once. It's scary as hell. I knew, academically, that what I was doing was wrong, but panicked. I'm lucky I stayed on the road. A Toyota driver is toast.

But it is an unrealistic test, much like the tests for rollovers. I  don't know many soccer moms that Finnish Flick their SUVs on a regular  basis. You need to be driving pretty close to the limit in the first  place for it to be an issue. From experience with many highway ramp incidents waiting behind SUVs to pick up the frickin' pace, their drivers don't come anywhere near the limit 



riverc0il said:


> I have NEVER taken a  turn like that, I can't imagine ever needing to either.


Need? No, not so much. Want? Hell yes. You should give it a try. It's fun. I agree with jalopnik.com's take on the whole thing:



> _Consumer Reports_ issued a rare "Don't Buy" warning for the 2010  Lexus GX 460 for what they claim is an unacceptable tendency to  oversteer during in-corner throttle lift in aggressive driving. Sounds  like a feature to us.





> *Toyota halts Lexus  GX 460 sales. One man's feature? Another man's safety problem.*


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 15, 2010)

mondeo said:


> I  don't know many soccer moms that Finnish Flick their SUVs on a regular  basis. You need to be driving pretty close to the limit in the first  place for it to be an issue.



Add 2"of snow on the ground and the scenario becomes very likely.  And in that scenario MOST drivers will panic and lift the throttle because they have received no training on how to handle a car during a slide.  Watch the news during an ice storm and you'll see tons of idiots lock up the brakes and just let the car slide for 685 feet or so and then plow into something.  For a long time I've been a proponent of mandating 10 hours of skid-pad training for all new drivers.  But this will never happen.

I think the issue at hand should be:  Why does it take so long before Toyota's so-called "traction control" is triggered and starts wrestling control of the wayward vehicle?  My wife's AWD Dodge Journey will give me an indicator that it's senses slippery conditions even before I've felt anything to suggest wheel slip.  Yet I can do a very intentional Finnish Flick in my 'yota pickup and have it swing left AND right before the warning chime even goes off.

One can debate the need for such safety devices (I am one who believes a driver should not need nor rely on such intervention), but the fact that they are there means they should work as intended.  Toyota's does not and this is more dangerous than not having it at all as it gives a false sense of security.


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2010)

smitty77 said:


> Add 2"of snow on the ground and the scenario becomes very likely.  And in that scenario MOST drivers will panic and lift the throttle because they have received no training on how to handle a car during a slide.  Watch the news during an ice storm and you'll see tons of idiots lock up the brakes and just let the car slide for 685 feet or so and then plow into something.  For a long time I've been a proponent of mandating 10 hours of skid-pad training for all new drivers.  But this will never happen.
> 
> I think the issue at hand should be:  Why does it take so long before Toyota's so-called "traction control" is triggered and starts wrestling control of the wayward vehicle?  My wife's AWD Dodge Journey will give me an indicator that it's senses slippery conditions even before I've felt anything to suggest wheel slip.  Yet I can do a very intentional Finnish Flick in my 'yota pickup and have it swing left AND right before the warning chime even goes off.
> 
> One can debate the need for such safety devices (I am one who believes a driver should not need nor rely on such intervention), but the fact that they are there means they should work as intended.  Toyota's does not and this is more dangerous than not having it at all as it gives a false sense of security.


On thing I'm curious about...if you have a car with traction control, is there anything different you need to do?  For example, with ABS, one doesn't pump brakes anymore.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 15, 2010)

smitty77 said:


> Add 2"of snow on the ground and the scenario becomes very likely.  And in that scenario MOST drivers will panic and lift the throttle because they have received no training on how to handle a car during a slide.  Watch the news during an ice storm and you'll see tons of idiots lock up the brakes and just let the car slide for 685 feet or so and then plow into something.  For a long time I've been a proponent of mandating 10 hours of skid-pad training for all new drivers.  But this will never happen.


Snowy or wet-weather conditions won't result in that type of vehicle response, though. You need serious weight transfer to get the type of oversteer that's shown in the video. Low traction just results in slides, not pitching the car sideways like that. The occasional fishtail, but that's a different beast again. Traction control, not stability. There's a difference.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 15, 2010)

hammer said:


> On thing I'm curious about...if you have a car with traction control, is there anything different you need to do?  For example, with ABS, one doesn't pump brakes anymore.


Well, you have to hit the "off" button to have any fun. Hopefully that doesn't get regulated away.


----------



## bigbog (Apr 15, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Not that I care one way or the other, but how long ago was it that no vehicles had any sort of electronic stability controls?  Were they all considered unsafe?  How about if people learn how to drive, and not rely on electronic band-aides.  Ever hear of counter-steering?? :roll:
> 
> To me a vehicles inability to prevent it's driver from doing stupid stuff does not make it unsafe..


Always good to have some sort of testing....but I have to agree with you Brian, the media's just waiting for the _feeding frenzy_ 24x7.  I've test driven Priuses up the ying-yang for a few years now....over railroad tracks...etc..., not anykind of problem once enunciated for the media to fall over.  To carefully listen to the stories of the people whose ordeals that have been made public...leaves one to wonder just how the hell they lived having done nothing to counteract the issues in the initial few seconds...:-?  I mean, how the hell does someone maintain control over a vehicle going 60mph while in reverse..while on a cell-phone..?;-)...and around corners on a "winding road" at what was it?..90mph?  That's less risky than simply pushing a button to shut the engine off...

Only in America....


----------



## severine (Apr 15, 2010)

smitty77 said:


> One can debate the need for such safety devices (I am one who believes a driver should not need nor rely on such intervention), but the fact that they are there means they should work as intended.  Toyota's does not and this is more dangerous than not having it at all as it gives a false sense of security.


Isn't relying upon these sorts of things having a false sense of security anyway? Again, one should know how to *drive*--relying upon electronic equipment that is prone to failure (the more electronic parts, the more things to break) is asking for trouble.

I'm not that old and I think people are just too damn soft. If you drove like you should be, there wouldn't be the "need" for these ancillary products.


----------



## Edd (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm clearly in the minority here (perhaps alone) about having ESC on cars.  The system is certainly not to be "relied" upon for anything day to day.  It won't come into play 99.9999% of your life putting it into the same category as helmets and seatbelts.  

I'm sure everyone here is a super-capable driver but the inescapable fact is people are idiots or just really bad drivers.  Our laws are powerless to raise someon'e IQ so, for the public good, we put buffers between acts of stupidity and death.  

I, for one, will never rely on ESC any more than I rely on my seatbelt.  I'll just drive as well as I can.


----------



## marcski (Apr 15, 2010)

I just keep thinking its going to take Toyota a long time to get their name and safety back together again in the same sentence.  Remember the old "acceleration problem" in the Audi 5000.  Took awhile for Audi to recoup from that one....but I must say they have come back very strong...so if you got that Toyota stock maybe hold on for the long haul.


----------



## Glenn (Apr 16, 2010)

marcski said:


> I just keep thinking its going to take Toyota a long time to get their name and safety back together again in the same sentence.  Remember the old "acceleration problem" in the Audi 5000.  Took awhile for Audi to recoup from that one....but I must say they have come back very strong...so if you got that Toyota stock maybe hold on for the long haul.



Audi almost had to pull out of the US market because of that. For a few years after that "problem", sales were poor. Amazing how hitting the wrong pedal and almost sink a brand.


----------



## HD333 (Apr 16, 2010)

Glenn said:


> . Amazing how hitting the wrong pedal and almost sink a brand.



Amazing how fast the press can almost sink a brand. 

Like others have said, using common sense is quickly fading away in this country.  
HD


----------



## Geoff (Apr 16, 2010)

Edd said:


> I'm clearly in the minority here (perhaps alone) about having ESC on cars.  The system is certainly not to be "relied" upon for anything day to day.  It won't come into play 99.9999% of your life putting it into the same category as helmets and seatbelts.
> 
> I'm sure everyone here is a super-capable driver but the inescapable fact is people are idiots or just really bad drivers.  Our laws are powerless to raise someon'e IQ so, for the public good, we put buffers between acts of stupidity and death.
> 
> I, for one, will never rely on ESC any more than I rely on my seatbelt.  I'll just drive as well as I can.



I'd rather have good snow tires.  On dry roads, I don't out-drive the car so I don't need stability control.   If you're tailgating while talking on the cell phone or are otherwise distracted, it's pretty easy to get in a situation where you roll an SUV.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 16, 2010)

HD333 said:


> Like others have said, using common sense is quickly fading away in this country.
> HD



Don't worry they'll just keep coming up with new widgets to make up for it.  Common sense is obsolete technology... :roll:


----------



## Paul (Apr 16, 2010)

Holy Shit! A Smitty sighting!!


----------



## Glenn (Apr 16, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Don't worry they'll just keep coming up with new widgets to make up for it.  Common sense is obsolete technology... :roll:



It went out the window along with personal responsibility. If you crash, it's the fault of the vehicle. Forget the fact that a vehicle cannot operate without human input...still the fault of the inanimate object.


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 16, 2010)

Paul said:


> Holy Shit! A Smitty sighting!!


I know, huh?  Been a long time, and I've lurked off and on, but this Toyota business caused me to pull the trigger.



mondeo said:


> Snowy or wet-weather conditions won't result in that type of vehicle response, though. You need serious weight transfer to get the type of oversteer that's shown in the video. Low traction just results in slides, not pitching the car sideways like that. The occasional fishtail, but that's a different beast again. Traction control, not stability. There's a difference.



According to the originally quoted article:
"In normal cases, the electronic stability control should quickly correct the loss of control and keep the SUV on its intended path.* But with the GX 460, the stability control took too long to adjust*, which could cause a rollover accident if one of the sliding wheels were to strike the curb or another obstacle, said Gabriel Shenhar, Consumer Reports' senior auto test engineer who was one of four testers who experienced the problem."

And the bold text is what I'm talking about.  I think this problem has less to do with the stability control than it does the time at which intervention is applied to avoid getting sideways to begin with.  And through my experience this problem is not limited to just the vehicle in question.  It seems CR was concerned with striking a curb or gutter while sliding, and not as concerned with the pitching of the vehicle by itself.  Which brings me to:



severine said:


> Isn't relying upon these sorts of things having a false sense of security anyway?



Yes and no.  ABS is common on every vehicle because it works.  Sure you can stop a car quicker by pumping the brakes but I've had the ABS save my bacon once or twice in some very icy driving conditions.  "Rely on" is probably not the right term.  I can't say I would rely on it as much as I would appreciate it's help if I ever do get in over my head and can't recover the vehicle.  Long story short: The Toyota system is as useless as teets on a bull, IMHO.


----------

