SAT Posted July 17, 2003 Posted July 17, 2003 2 years ago I purchased a 92 ES300 with 95K, and had the Lexus dealer check the vehicle out. After determining only minor issues, I purchased the car. A mere 30 days (or 3K) later the automatic transmission was shot and need to be replaced costing an additional $3,000. Have since given the car to my dad, and am in the market again. This time am looking at a 92 ES300 with 120K with a manual transmission. Any advice on the difference between the two transmissions, other than save my money and by a 94 or newer? Lesser issues with the manual I would suspect. Thanks much!
chillaxin Posted July 17, 2003 Posted July 17, 2003 they made lexus with manual? i thought the only lexus with manual was the is
ProZac Posted July 17, 2003 Posted July 17, 2003 I have heard of an ES year with the manual option, never acutally seen a picture tho ~brian~
Lex3486 Posted July 18, 2003 Posted July 18, 2003 i looked and looked and LOOKED for a manual ES, but only ever found one in my city, and it was green. not my personal favorite color. i did some research, however, and a 5-speed was an option on the 92-93 models, but was discontinued for 94 becuase of lack of sales. anyhow, i heard of this one guy who claimed he could beat a host of fast cars (M3, IS300, etc.) with his stock 92, but i find it hard to believe that its that much faster. anyhow, good luck on your search. man, i'd still love to have one though. manuals are so much funner!
SKperformance Posted July 18, 2003 Posted July 18, 2003 the manual is only a 92-93 option it is nice for a minute but then get tiring the seats are not very supportive to sit in and drive a manual car as well and probably will have excessive wear on tehm from the added strain of movement the other reason the manaul was stopped is because the engine changed in 94 and then the camry no longer offered a manual either one thing to watch for is broken engine mounts and y pipes the mounts are pretty soft and the manual will flex the like crazy so look forward to replacing them as the auto does every few years on many cars i do know a guy who did throw the manual in his camry 94 a few isues getting it in there and making changes to the ecu to bypass the tranny that is not there one more thing is the SC 300 also had a manual i think 92-96 but i am not sure on the years
Lex3486 Posted July 19, 2003 Posted July 19, 2003 skperformance- you seem to know your Lexi pretty well; does the SC300 have the same engine and tranny as a Toyota Supra, only a little more "tuned down"? Or is it a V6? My uncle has a 95 or 96 SC300 with a manual. I'll have to say its my dream Lexus, but i can't remember from comparing it and my dad's Supra he used to have if it's the same engine or not. Seems like it was though.
SKperformance Posted July 19, 2003 Posted July 19, 2003 it is the same 92-96 supra engine but it is an inline 6 cyl not a V6 engine so you could add the hard ware to make it a twin turbo as some have done or just get one from japan and add it and it isn't realy tuned down for the lexus the toyota version is the same way it is an excellent engine and the turbo one is made to take enough psi to get to 500hp easy no problems as a daily driver a real bullet proof engine and i seem to waste alot of time looking at cars and reading as much on lexus as possible it helps when some one has a weird qestion or atleast a es owner asking about a non es so now i can sound smart because i have broadened my horizens lmao now if i could only spell
breedy Posted July 25, 2003 Posted July 25, 2003 I have a 93 ES with a manual. 200k and have never replaced the motor mounts.
bbsal Posted July 26, 2003 Posted July 26, 2003 how long did you have the car.they were probably replaced right before you bought it because a manual tranny will kill the mounts ALOT faster then a auto tranny.
bbsal Posted July 26, 2003 Posted July 26, 2003 i looked and looked and LOOKED for a manual ES, but only ever found one in my city, and it was green. not my personal favorite color. i did some research, however, and a 5-speed was an option on the 92-93 models, but was discontinued for 94 becuase of lack of sales. anyhow, i heard of this one guy who claimed he could beat a host of fast cars (M3, IS300, etc.) with his stock 92, but i find it hard to believe that its that much faster. anyhow, good luck on your search. man, i'd still love to have one though. manuals are so much funner! i drove a manual es 300 1993.one of my neighbors has one and i asked him if i could take it for a spin awhile back and it is faster then my 95 es but not a whole lot.but then again i have a newer more upgraded motor then the 93 es so i guess if mine was manual it would even be faster then his.overall its still no sports car manual or auto and never will be.now get a gs 400 like me and then you will feel some real power.lol i love both of my cars but im really starting to love the gs.good summer car but its not going to do much in the snow since its rear wheel drive.thats when i will drive the es the most!
Lex3486 Posted July 26, 2003 Posted July 26, 2003 yeah-speakin of other, faster models, I bet my uncles' SC300 is FAST! I wouldn't know though, b/c when he bought it and showed it to us, i'd only ever driven 2 manuals, so I (and he) thought it was best that I didn't drive it! haha. But if it is basically a Supra with better clothes on, that just makes me want one more!!! I'm with SK though; I love and always will love the ES. I'd just love to have it and an SC! That'd be the perfectly balanced garage if you ask me!!!
Lex3486 Posted July 26, 2003 Posted July 26, 2003 no, that garage would be truly balanced only if you add an LX450 to that equation, and then you'd have a perfect balance! We have a Land Cruiser, but im more fond of the LX450 (duh!) :P
Adam7 Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 I got your manual right here *grabs crotch* lol ;) It seems pretty sloppy after 153,000 miles though. Like while in gear there's a lot of play in the stick.
bbsal Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 see now the manuals are coming out of the woodwork!lol.good to see them.i wish mine was manual!
chillaxin Posted July 31, 2003 Posted July 31, 2003 eh, if i wanted a manual, i probably would've gone with the is, but it was all about comfort while sitting in traffic, and itz hard to get comfortable having to constantly shift in traffic ;)
Nabeel Posted August 2, 2003 Posted August 2, 2003 but then again i have a newer more upgraded motor then the 93 es so i guess if mine was manual it would even be faster then his For what it's worth, I've driven many '92-'96 ES300s and saw no difference whatsoever in power throughout the years. I remember getting '94-'96 dealer loaner cars when our '93 was in for service, and they drove the exact same. When push comes to shove, the later models are maybe very marginally quicker, if at all. Car and Driver got the exact same 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers from a '92 and a '94. Oh, and I would LOVE to get my hands on a manual ES300. There was a nice black/black '93 on ebay several months ago, but I couldn't buy it because it would have required me to sell my Audi first, in order to get the money. Ah well. Oh, and here's another manual transmission pic. Kinda weird to see 3 pedals down there in an ES300 B)
bbsal Posted August 2, 2003 Posted August 2, 2003 maybe true but a freind of mine has a 93 and of course i have a 95 and we raced just for the fun and i did beat him by about 6 to 8 feet in front of him but i guess if you are just driving it regular you wont really notice.now another freind of mine has a 96 and there no difference between mine and his.overall i would say its a little quicker.i think 94 is most likely the same as mine and a 96.i know in 94 thats when they did some mods to the motor.
Ronald Posted November 25, 2003 Posted November 25, 2003 I have a five speed manual and have had no transmission related problems. There is some mild torque steer when you floor it in first gear on a wet surface. For acceleration of the manual, Lexus listed in its literature 0-60 8.0 secs; 1/4 mile 16.2 secs @ 86 mph "under controlled conditions with a professional driver". "Car and Driver" tested a '92 or '93 Camry SE (the only V6 Camry with an available five speed manual) and posted 0-60 in 7.7 secs and 1/4-mile 16.0 secs @ 88 mph. In 1994, Toyota no longer packaged the five speed manual with the newer V6 because it could not meet emissions standards with a manual tranny with that engine without significant cost. Also, the demand for that combo was not big enough for Toyota to certify it for US sales. That changed in either 1997 or 1999 (I can't recall) when the Solara was available. If you want a pocket rocket beater, get a Solara with the manual tranny/V6 and then have a TRD supercharger installed. TRD claims it adds 52 horsepower and 55 lbs-ft of torque with 87 octane gas! I am sure the chip fiddlers can get even more performance by adjusting for 91 octane.
Lex3486 Posted November 25, 2003 Posted November 25, 2003 That'd be nice-Solara V6 5 speed supercharged. I'd still prefer an older ES with a manual though; they look much better in my opinion. B)
bbsal Posted November 25, 2003 Posted November 25, 2003 the es looks alot better and rides better also!ive driven a 97 solora and in my opinoin is no were near as nice as a es in rides or anything else.just my opinoin though
mcelligott Posted November 26, 2003 Posted November 26, 2003 Manual owner checking in here. SkPerformance, have you ever driven an ES manual? You seem to be making some assumptions that are false, making you look like you dont know what you are talking about. The seats are fine with support, the shifting is effortless and I am on original motor mounts as well after 171k of hard driving.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now