Road & Track's Long Term Gs450h

[RX400h]

From the latest Road & Track magazine:

All environmental ruminations aside, Lexus has engineered one heck of a car that has blazed an entirely different path for hybrid cars. The V-6 GS 450h was never meant for stellar 40-plus-mpg city/highway cruising and yet its performance-

focused nature doesn't negate the fact that it has averaged better fuel economy (25.2 mpg) than 73 percent of the cars we've long-term tested in the last five years, 20 percent of those cars equipped with 4-cylinder engines. Rising gas prices have played a role as our previously tested Audi A3 2.0 T burned the same amount of fossil fuel during its 50K stint as did our GS 450h, yet the GS 450h's gas bill was $148 more.

Adhering to the Lexus-recommended 5K maintenance schedule meant relatively frequent visits to the dealer usually at a minimum of $144 per visit, but nothing out of the ordinary in cost compared to other luxury marques. In fact, our Lexus undercut our recently tested Chrysler SRT8's routine maintenance by $498 and our Cadillac CTS-V by a whopping $2272, largely because we needed to replace the Lexus' run-flat Bridgestone Potenza RE040s only once.

If you've been following this test, you already know that we've had only a single issue with the car, a bad O2 sensor (covered under warranty at 15K miles). To not hear a creak or a squeak since then from any area of a first-generation vehicle is an amazing feat. And with as many electronically controlled features as this car came with, not a single function went awry.

Seated in the GS while making final notes on wear areas, I was in disbelief that the interior had actually seen 50,000 miles of action. The leather interior, even in its cream hue, showed almost no signs of fatigue save for a couple of spots on the driver-seat's left bolster. All the charcoal-colored wood trim from the dash to the armrests is in excellent condition and free of delamination. Even the console buttons and window controls look as if they've not been used by passengers. In fact, the only real blemished pieces I could find were the light gray floormats, which would set you back about $110 for a new factory set of four.

Should we have the power to change anything on future generations of GS 450hs, a unanimous decision (and one we've almost beaten to death) would be the placement or size of the battery. This is the one really big limiting factor in long-distance travel as the trunk is barely large enough for two medium luggage cases. This converts this comfortable 5-seater city car into a 3-seater GT if your passengers come with any luggage.

An item up for debate is the drop-drawer on the dash that provides a home for 14 additional control buttons (trunk and fuel-door releases, mirror adjustment, etc.), which some found cumbersome to access or painful if left open and bumped into. Personally, I found the panel a good solution as you would have to otherwise find 14 individual locations for the buttons within the cabin.

Last but not least, as enthusiasts, we're never too pleased to have our freedom policed by the invisible reins of stability control. In this case it was Lexus' aggressive VDIM (Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management) that, especially with such a potent hybrid powerplant at our disposal, led us to believe that the GS 450h's sporting potential was never fully realized.

We know you are changing your direction, Lexus, the new IS F being proof of this, and we like where you are headed!

[Randy&Bonnie]

..

[RX400h]

Most $60,000 vehicles do get good-great reviews, initially; however, adter a long-term test, many earn much less flattering reviews. Examples include (but aren't limited to) many models of Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, and even BMW.

[smooth1]

I would have to double check, but I don't think Mercedes, or Audi even have a car in the recommended list for Consumer Reports. Not that I put a alot into CR, but I thought that was interesting. So your point is a good one, that why then do these magazines continue to give great initial reviews and top rankings to the same cars that they know fall apart? Other than the obvious advertising dollars.

[RX400h]

Someone asked the editors at Car & Driver that very question and the editor replied that this is why they have long-term testing - to let the readers know what they may be in for if they purchase that particular vehicle. Of course, manufacturers like Mercedes love the initial impressions, because many consumers (who don't subscribe to CR) see only those and not the long term versions.

Even CR will rank a known-unreliable vehicle at the top of a list if that vehicle performed well, but CR will NOT place a "recommended" check mark next to it, telling readers that they should stay away.

[smooth1]

Yeah, that's a good point about ranking vs. recommended.