GreekMan Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Has anyone ever been off-road with a RX400H? Why should Lexus make a car like this, and then discourage off-roading? What will happen if THIS car pass through water such as a small river, or mud, or loads of water anyway on a damaged road. What lies underneath?
katzjamr Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Off roading is highly discouraged because there is no way to cool the rear electric motor during the possible heavy use that this activity requires. Also the 400h is primarily front wheel drive unless a rear wheel is slipping. The rear wheels are powered only by the electric motor, there is no true ablilty for this vehicle to transfer most if its traction to the rear wheels. I am sure the vehicle is built to take a normal amout of moisture underneath, i wouldnt cross a small river, with this suv.
Rx330driver Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 The thing is, they also discourage off roading with the rx330
thesaintjim Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Buy the Volkswagen toureg (spelling?) Rated #1 for off-road SUV!
RX400h Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Buy the Volkswagen toureg (spelling?) Rated #1 for off-road SUV! ← ...and also the most unreliable SUV of them all - stay away!
GreekMan Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 ...and also the most unreliable SUV of them all - stay away! ← VW Touareg ... unreliable SUV? :D no way man, it's one of the greatest SUVs ever made, and it's a VW. Unbelievable driveability, awesome luxury, extreme electronics, VW reliability. It's just too expensive. The 5.0 littre diesel engine is the most technologicaly advanced engine ever made in the history of automobiles untill now. Anyway, there are big differences between Europe and US , something that I never understood why should be. Probably because diesels are not available in the US, or because you have too much cheap gas. For me, the best is the Land Rover Discovery 3 (LR3) as it offers completely EVERYTHING and at a normal price. (If I was living in the US , I would definetely buy a Lincoln navigator though!)
thesaintjim Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Buy the Volkswagen toureg (spelling?) Rated #1 for off-road SUV! ← ...and also the most unreliable SUV of them all - stay away! ← How true. When I was shopping for a SUV it was between the 400h or the toureg. Told the sales guy I was going with the Lexus as it was the #1 rated SUV and the toureg was very unreliable. He said the 05 was reliable..(Duh, he is a salesman) Wanted to mention that the toureg was 3k more than the 400h! BUT, that car was awesome...Just can't see the 21 MPG when i do around 100 miles a day
SW03ES Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 VW reliability. ← You might want to look at some reviews of VW's reliability. Why should Lexus make a car like this, and then discourage off-roading? They didn't "make a car like that". low profile tires, low ground clearance, no low range 4WD. Its basically just a Toyota Sienna minivan you've got to remember. Its not really an SUV. At least not in the sense something like an Explorer or Grand Cherokee is.
NeoN Posted December 20, 2007 Posted December 20, 2007 VW reliability. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You might want to look at some reviews of VW's reliability. Why should Lexus make a car like this, and then discourage off-roading? They didn't "make a car like that". low profile tires, low ground clearance, no low range 4WD. Its basically just a Toyota Sienna minivan you've got to remember. Its not really an SUV. At least not in the sense something like an Explorer or Grand Cherokee is. you make a great point. seriously, VW reliability? Is that intended to be some kind of joke or something?
raymsixsix Posted December 20, 2007 Posted December 20, 2007 The RX, like many SUV's, are built on a car chasis, and were never intended to venture off-road. They're supposed to offer the comfort and manuverability of a sedan, but sit higher and offer more style than a station wagon
wwest Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 The RX, like many SUV's, are built on a car chasis, and were never intended to venture off-road. They're supposed to offer the comfort and manuverability of a sedan, but sit higher and offer more style than a station wagon Off-road definitions... SPORT......."boulder climbing" ....NOT/NEVER..!! Casual.......gravel, dirt,....OKAY (Black Nugget Rd, WA). Wash-out gully "private drive"......NOT WET. Mountain-side wash-out gully "private drive(??)" (Lynx Lake, AZ).........Questionable/NOT WET. Have used my (now daughter's) '00 AWD Chrysler T&C and my '01 AWD RX300 for all but SPORT.
Jim Clark Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 The RX300-350 AWD is different than the 400, it uses the gas engine power and a transfer case to get power to the rear wheels. The only thing powering the 400 rears is the rear electric motor. That is on when additional power is asked for and apparently if the front wheels are spinning. But in another thread, people talked about getting stuck in some deeper snow, even with winter tires. The traction control system apparently takes over and basically shuts the car down if the wheels are spinning so you can't muscle your way through the deep stuff. Our cars are NOT true AWD. On Consumer Reports list of used cars to avoid, VW has more models on the list than any other manufacturer, including the Toureg. If you want luxury and true AWD, get an Audi allroad or Q7 ('03+, preferably with the 4.2 V8) or a Range Rover. But none of those will be reliable.
wwest Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 The RX300-350 AWD is different than the 400, it uses the gas engine power and a transfer case to get power to the rear wheels. The only thing powering the 400 rears is the rear electric motor. That is on when additional power is asked for and apparently if the front wheels are spinning. But in another thread, people talked about getting stuck in some deeper snow, even with winter tires. The traction control system apparently takes over and basically shuts the car down if the wheels are spinning so you can't muscle your way through the deep stuff. Our cars are NOT true AWD.On Consumer Reports list of used cars to avoid, VW has more models on the list than any other manufacturer, including the Toureg. If you want luxury and true AWD, get an Audi allroad or Q7 ('03+, preferably with the 4.2 V8) or a Range Rover. But none of those will be reliable. "....Our cars are NOT true AWD..." More correctly stated... "Our cars are NOT true 4WD/4X4...." AWD means different things to different people, or more correctly there are literally a MYRIAD of AWD implementations out there in the marketplace. For F/AWD, Front torque biased AWD, (mostly derived from a FWD "base") in the RX300 class, the Acura SH-AWD system is the OUTSTANDING choice. For R/AWD the BMW X3 would be my choice. Apparently the '08 models now have a TC disable and, sequenually, a VSC disable capability> some Toyota model even have an A-LSD capability that allow a significant level of intentional wheelspin. Consumer Reports SUCKS...!! They wouldn't know the truth if it hit them square in the face.
Jim Clark Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 The RX300-350 AWD is different than the 400, it uses the gas engine power and a transfer case to get power to the rear wheels. The only thing powering the 400 rears is the rear electric motor. That is on when additional power is asked for and apparently if the front wheels are spinning. But in another thread, people talked about getting stuck in some deeper snow, even with winter tires. The traction control system apparently takes over and basically shuts the car down if the wheels are spinning so you can't muscle your way through the deep stuff. Our cars are NOT true AWD.On Consumer Reports list of used cars to avoid, VW has more models on the list than any other manufacturer, including the Toureg. If you want luxury and true AWD, get an Audi allroad or Q7 ('03+, preferably with the 4.2 V8) or a Range Rover. But none of those will be reliable. "....Our cars are NOT true AWD..." More correctly stated... "Our cars are NOT true 4WD/4X4...." AWD means different things to different people, or more correctly there are literally a MYRIAD of AWD implementations out there in the marketplace. For F/AWD, Front torque biased AWD, (mostly derived from a FWD "base") in the RX300 class, the Acura SH-AWD system is the OUTSTANDING choice. For R/AWD the BMW X3 would be my choice. Apparently the '08 models now have a TC disable and, sequenually, a VSC disable capability> some Toyota model even have an A-LSD capability that allow a significant level of intentional wheelspin. Consumer Reports SUCKS...!! They wouldn't know the truth if it hit them square in the face. Some good points on AWD systems. I've driven the best, Audi and my older Jeep. Have not had the RX400h in the slippery or deep stuff yet. I do not believe there is a way to disconnect traction control, even on our 2008's. But, this car is very new to us and I've only driven it a little and have not read the entire manual (it's huge). I have not noticed a switch that looked like something to disable traction control. In any event, the 400h F/AWD system doesn't come close to real AWD systems. Consumer Reports has an excellent database on auto repair histories. It is solely based on surveys of their members. It is totally objective with no bias on their part. I don't like everything about Consumer Reports, including the way they rate new cars, but their used car reliability reports are excellent.
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