Transmission Problems/failures with RX300 awd/fwd

[wwest]

There would obviously be more reports on the '99 and 2000 models because they are higher mileage cars. I've owned several makes of cars that have experienced transmission failures including an Izuzu Rodeo and a Toyota Celica. I've seen friends have many transmission failures on all types of cars. Almost all of these failures occurred between 70 and 100k miles. Most of them were never serviced or improperly serviced.

I have another question. If the RX300 is the design lemon you are saying it is, then what about the Toyota Highlander? They are basically the same car.

Highlander came on the scene later....2001 I think.

There would obviously be more reports on the '99 and 2000 models because they are higher mileage cars. I've owned several makes of cars that have experienced transmission failures including an Izuzu Rodeo and a Toyota Celica. I've seen friends have many transmission failures on all types of cars. Almost all of these failures occurred between 70 and 100k miles. Most of them were never serviced or improperly serviced.

I have another question. If the RX300 is the design lemon you are saying it is, then what about the Toyota Highlander? They are basically the same car.

Highlander came on the scene later....2001 I think.

[bluestu]

bluestu,

My invitation to go a few rounds in the ring still stands if you ever make it down to the Raleigh/Durham area. Some of the Thursday night bouts over the past couple of months have really gotten intense and I've picked up a few tricks from a couple of the long-time pros and gotten into great fighting trim. I've had my bell rung a couple of times but haven't been knocked out yet. My sparring partner last night got in a couple of great kidney punches as part of a smooth combination he pulled off and I'm still a little sore from that but I'll be ready and rarin' to go again by next Thursday night. Care to come on down and join me?

Sounds like great fun if you're a psycho. I think Lenore(Tom) has something else in mind for you!!!

[tmastres]

[ Oh yeah, I've seen a total of less than 10 owners that have had transmission failures, certainly not 50 or 60. Talking about spinning a topic. I'll let you guys know when the defective transmissions on my 1999 and 2000 RX burn up. Don't hold your breath, it will probably/hopefully be a while. Flush or die!!!

If 50-60 is Spin then only 10 would be Back Spin, Do you work for Fox News by any chance bluestu??

The site I referenced earlier outlined at least 7 cases of failure from the 30 or so posts and theres certainly been more than 10 mentioned here in my years monitoring this board. Now I'm with you in the respect that my 00 tranny hasnt failed (yet) and I've got about 92k on it. I also know several people whove gotten over 100 k on their RX trannys, but the randomness and total difference in all the sories of failure certainly means that something has to be up with the early RX trannys. I know you believe its a maintenace issue but we've got people on this board who do extra-regular services and have still experienced failures. Moreover, I suspected (and still do a bit) that all the flushing and changing of the fluid may be propagating the failures somehow (but I have no evidence to that end)

How many miles do you have on your RX's? Someone was inquirng about higher mileage RX a while back, maybe you can help shed some light on the True secret to gettng high mileage out of these things.

[RX in NC]

I don't believe there's any secret, at least one that can be identified consistently. Hell, ours failed at around 48,000 miles and it's had nothing but fresh Type T-IV fluid changes every 30,000 miles since it rolled out of the factory. It's also driven by one of the most conservative drivers you'll ever encounter (my wife).

I agree with previous posts that infer mostly highway driving, conservative driving habits, and regular drain-and-fills give you your best shot at getting decent mileage out of your transmission before it gives up the ghost. But my wife fits into all three of those categories, so go figure.

But it's an undeniable fact that more and more owners are reporting transmission failures on all of these Lexus and other car care sites as their RX300s begin to reach 75,000 to 100,000 miles. Monarch would automatically lump them into the "you didn't take care of your vehicle so it's all your fault" category, but if you study some of the more detailed responses you'll find that many of these folks have changed their fluid and maintained their vehicles properly (assuming they're telling the truth, of course).

But the killing blow continues to be the fact that most Lexus service advisors across the country tell their RX300 clients that they should change their transmission fluid every 15,000 miles. That, my friends, is all but an admission of general awareness of the problem. Unfortunately, it's also an irresponsible and chicken*BLEEP* tactic to pull in order to avoid the cost of a recall or retrofit.

Those of you who've yet to have your RX300 transmissions fail can bellow and puff all you want on this board. But when you're driving along in the future and your transmission suddenly grinds and dies, you'll be jumping up and down and changing your tune so fast it will actually be a bit pathetic....

[bluestu]

I do watch Fox News for a good laugh. I have almost 100k on both RXs without any signs of transmission failure. I'm not the one speculating on why the transmissions are failing. I've talked with transmission specialists, mechanics, and Toyota and Lexus. They've all agreed that the only way to remove all dirty fluid from the RX transaxle is to flush it. They also recommend using the special additive to keep the fluid oxygenated. That's the service I've had done ever since I bought the vehicles. I have a Ford Aerostar van that I perform a drain and fill plus filter change, which seems to be adequate.

I suggest you do some research as I have done and find out exactly how much fluid the RX300 transaxle holds. Speculating on the cause of transmission failures is not helping anyone resolve their issues. A drain and fill will never be adequate service to prevent transmission failure on an RX300. We do have the data from this forum to support that.

[lenore]

Ok blustu, the capacity I believe was 8.7 or 9.7 quarts total. This is just redundant repitition, but Monarch infuriates me. The failures just keep rolling in. I feel sorry for anyone that has this failure as it is so costly compared to most other tranny rebuilts. Lexus is ducking and hiding, hoping that it will go away. Just tell us what they did to improve reliability.

[tmastres]

Sorry to keep this thread alive without actually adding much but I'm glad to hear that you've got that many miles on your RX's bluestu, it gives me hope that mine will soldier on as well. Nonetheless I'm filling a file-folder full of the stories of failures, numbers to call and things to try if and when mine starts acting up. I appreciate the info you've all put up here, I hope I never have to use it but I'll be happy I've got it at hand should the need arise.

[Ericok]

For anyone whos compiling complaints or "reports of incidents" heres an interesting site that details a few more RX trans failures. Interesting pattern I noticed here though was that it seems most of the failures are on the 99 models not with 2000 or later. I think we deduced here that it was both 99/00 models that had higher failure rates, anyho just FYI

http://www.carsurvey.org/model_Lexus_RX300.html

Interesting site, but 4 people complained about their 1998 Lexus RX300. Lexus didn't even make a 1998 RX300. Go figure.

[tmastres]

Interesting site, but 4 people complained about their 1998 Lexus RX300. Lexus didn't even make a 1998 RX300. Go figure.

I noticed that too but I just assumed they bought them as 99 model cars in late 1998. Maybe they didn't realize it was the first model year. Of course that lends creedence to the theory that you should never buy a first model year car.

[bluestu]

Ok blustu, the capacity I believe was 8.7 or 9.7 quarts total. This is just redundant repitition, but Monarch infuriates me. The failures just keep rolling in. I feel sorry for anyone that has this failure as it is so costly compared to most other tranny rebuilts. Lexus is ducking and hiding, hoping that it will go away. Just tell us what they did to improve reliability.

The failures are going to keep rolling in. Pretty soon it will be the 2001 models and so on. If the capacity is 9.5 qts., then how could a drain and fill of three or four quarts be effective in preventive maintenance. I know you and some others on this forum think this is adequate, but it isn't. All the mechanics I've talked to are in favor of flushing the RX transmissions, even the ones that don't have the machines. Don't take my word on the matter, call around yourself like you did the other day concerning the additive that you weren't aware of. At least my redundancy is based on fact, not speculation. I would say that most of the RX300 transmission failures are caused from poor maintenance and overheating rather than a design flaw. When you have factual evidence to support a design flaw, then I will be one of the first to take notice. I do agree that Lexus is a huge ripoff. I would never take my car to a dealership unless it concerned a warranty issue. If I need a part, I always get the part number from Lexus and then call Toyota or a local parts store to purchase it.

[monarch]

I would say that most of the RX300 transmission failures are caused from poor maintenance and overheating rather than a design flaw. When you have factual evidence to support a design flaw, then I will be one of the first to take notice.

I agree because if the RX300 transmission had an inherently flawed design then there wouldn't be any RX300 owners who reached the 200,000 mile and beyond . And instead of dozens of RX300 owners complaining of failed transmssions, there would be thousands as is the case with several model years of the Chrysler / Dodge / Plymouth minivans. My definition of a flawed design is when a componet fails prematurely despite always being kept continuously lubricated with the correct quantity of fresh lubricant and despite being driven in a reasonably gentle manner.

[wwest]

Again...

Pure and simple..

These failures are the result of a change in the shifting procedures adopted at the beginning of the RX300 production. There was an estimate that 9.8% fuel economy would result from these changes.

1. Aggressive upshifts: get the vehicle in the highest possible gear ASAP.

2. Eliminate engine compression braking, extend coasting distances, by upshifting upon throttle closure at normal roadspeeds.

3. Make use of the torque converter lockup clutch in gear ratios other than actual O/D.

4. During throttle closed coastdowns with braking below 10 MPH shift into neutral and then only into 1st gear after fully stopped.

As one can see these would all add, dramatically in some cases, to the number of shifts involved in a typical city stop and go commute.

This "coastdown shift into neutral" has resulted in the "bumped from behind effect" many drivers experience just prior to coming to a full stop.

Unexpected upshifting has resulted in many drivers experiencing the "slingshot effect" due to upshifting during throttle closed coastdown at ~35-55 MPH.

In 2004 DBW was adopted to "protect the drivetrain": Do not allow the engine to develop torque until these upshifts, and more importantly, DOWNSHIFTS, are fully completed with the clutches fully and firmly seated.

IMMHO the RX series premature transaxle failures will continue through and to the 2004 model years.

[jgr7]

I still think that it is a material flaw that leads to the failure. The intended design of the transmission to do all the things wwest says was just that. The materials used to accomplish this were not up to the job. Lexus must have discovered this at some time and switched vendors or changed the process used to make what ever part(s) that were causing the failure. My guess is that they got a bad batch of friction plates that were mixed with good ones. If they all were bad we would have seen thousands of bad trannys. I see so many RX 300s in my area that there is no way there wouldn't be more complaints of bad trannys if they were all bad.

Lexus most likely didn't catch the bad product during assembly because it looked normal. There is no way they can tell which RXs have the bad parts so they just figure hey we play dumb ignore the problem and don't do a recall. If the tranny fails under warranty they fix it, if not they see what kind of push back they get from the owner and go from there.

It's likely that doing fluid changes was the best way to get the RXs past the warranty period before failure. Has any one ever seen production numbers for the early RXs?

This is my 2 cents worth that I have no factual information on. Just seems like common sense that there would be more failures if it was a design flaw.

Jeff

[monarch]

Again...Pure and simple..These failures are the result of a change in the shifting procedures adopted at the beginning of the RX300 production.

Then why don't the 2WD RX300, ES300, Camry's, Sienna Vans, etc. transmissions have failures?

[wwest]

I still think that it is a material flaw that leads to the failure. The intended design of the transmission to do all the things wwest says was just that. The materials used to accomplish this were not up to the job. Lexus must have discovered this at some time and switched vendors or changed the process used to make what ever part(s) that were causing the failure. My guess is that they got a bad batch of friction plates that were mixed with good ones. If they all were bad we would have seen thousands of bad trannys. I see so many RX 300s in my area that there is no way there wouldn't be more complaints of bad trannys if they were all bad.

Lexus most likely didn't catch the bad product during assembly because it looked normal. There is no way they can tell which RXs have the bad parts so they just figure hey we play dumb ignore the problem and don't do a recall. If the tranny fails under warranty they fix it, if not they see what kind of push back they get from the owner and go from there.

It's likely that doing fluid changes was the best way to get the RXs past the warranty period before failure. Has any one ever seen production numbers for the early RXs?

This is my 2 cents worth that I have no factual information on. Just seems like common sense that there would be more failures if it was a design flaw.

Jeff

No, lets say, assume, that during the design phase the transaxle clutches, etc, were designed to go ~150,000 miles before worse case non-rough use failure due to clutch frictional surface wear. The aggressive shift logic white paper was published in 1999 so there is some reason to suspect these methods were adopted for the early RXes after the mechanical design was completed.

A 9.8% improvement in FE is something no company can ignore.

So, to the "numbers"...

It seems pretty clear to me that the relatively few engine/transaxle hesitation complaints are arising as a result of the FIX. As you coast down to come to a full stop, brakes applied, the transaxle shifts into neutral. Now you suddenly decide to accelerate but the transaxle isn't in gear, ANY gear!

Some call that a California Stop.

In "our" RXes (99-03), with a "hardwired" accelerator pedal, the transaxle clutches just have to SUFFER, pop quickly into 1st gear and slip a bit until firmly seated.

Whereas after 04 the engine simply doesn't respond to the movement of the accelerator pedal until the transaxle can complete the shiftdown into 1st.

Think of what you might do were you driving a stick. As you coastdown for a full stop with the brakes applied you would disengage the clutch and shift down into 1st in preparation for the "go" signal.

So, for the 1999-2003 the worse case wear rate has doubled making the transaxle failures ~75,000 miles.

[jgr7]

We all agree that what you say about how the tranny is working sounds logical. What you can't seem to grasp is in the real world (not on paper)

there just isn't that many failures compaired to the amout of RXs out there. Thats why I think Lexus got some sub-standard clutches at one point and they got spread out in production. Maybe one RX gets all of its clutches that are the bad ones and others only get one or two. This would explain the low mileage and high mileage failures.

Jeff

[tmhtmh]

Again...Pure and simple..These failures are the result of a change in the shifting procedures adopted at the beginning of the RX300 production.

Then why don't the 2WD RX300, ES300, Camry's, Sienna Vans, etc. transmissions have failures?

They do.

Find a Sienna site from that time frame and you'll see tranny complaints just like here. The Camary is less so because it is a much lighter vehicle, of course. Also, the 2WD RX300 DOES have many reports of failures. At least, quite a few considering how few were sold compared to the AWD.

OBVIOUSLY, Toyota/Lexus should have instructed owners to change the tranny fluid every 20-30k miles on this vehicle. However, had they done that many fewer would have been sold as most buyers would have assumed it meant the tranny was inferior to what they expect, especially from toyota and and from a $40k vehicle!

btw, Monarch, you're "gently driven" remark was a nice touch! I can just see the TV comercials for the "Monarch RX300" - "Drive it with tender gentleness and ALWAYS change the fluids when you stop for gas and your new luxury lexus might last half as long as you expect from Toyota!"

[wwest]

We all agree that what you say about how the tranny is working sounds logical. What you can't seem to grasp is in the real world (not on paper)

there just isn't that many failures compaired to the amout of RXs out there. Thats why I think Lexus got some sub-standard clutches at one point and they got spread out in production. Maybe one RX gets all of its clutches that are the bad ones and others only get one or two. This would explain the low mileage and high mileage failures.

Jeff

In your "real world" just how many 2001-2003 RX300's do you suppose have upwards of 75,000 miles on the odometer...?

And keep in mind that in the RX300 owner "class" there would typically be more than one answer to "so, what do I drive today..?"

My 2001 was purchased early in the model year, is driven to/from work virtually every work day, a few trips to central MT and back, and still with only ~60,000 miles. There wasn't any noticeable ATF contamination until about 38,000 miles and took two drain and refills to clear up.

[tmhtmh]

As long as we're on the subject of tranny fluid.....

I was considering a Tranny fluid flush at Jiffy Lube. I know they have MANY issues with poor work so I may go elsewhere. i do NOT want to go to Toyota/lexus because I am having it flushed after I use Auto-RX additive to clean the system. I'm sure Toyota would use that to void my warranty if a problem ever developed. I recently had it flushed at Toyota so they know it's not 'due" for one.

ASSUMING jiffy lube (or whoever) can do it properly, I wonder if the Quaker State synthetic fluid they use is OK for the RX300. Of course, they claim it is, but I have no idea. I figure synthetic is probably better as a rule of thumb, assuming it is OK for that particular engine. Any opinions on Quaker State synthetic Tranny fluid?

btw, after about 200 mi. with the Auto-RX in the tranny fluid I have noticed a bit smoother shifting, as has my wife who didn't know I added it. Mine seemed fine already, so I'm in more of a PM stage on the cleanup. The fluid didn't look so good when I had it flushed at 55k mi. It's used and I'm not sure if the previous owner flushed it or not. The Auto-RX goes for about 1000 mi. then it is flushed out.

I know many would say not to screw while it's still under warranty, but I have no desire to have a failure after hitting 70k - I figure if the Auto-RX will help, it needs to be done sooner rather than when the tranny is on it's way out! I'll just lie to Lexus if anything happens under warranty (may sound "dishonest" but that's how the warranty game is played). If the failure were truely MY fault, then I'd own up to it. However, they use ANYTHING to point the blame back at the owner so I'll play their game.

[wwest]

As long as we're on the subject of tranny fluid.....

I was considering a Tranny fluid flush at Jiffy Lube. I know they have MANY issues with poor work so I may go elsewhere. i do NOT want to go to Toyota/lexus because I am having it flushed after I use Auto-RX additive to clean the system. I'm sure Toyota would use that to void my warranty if a problem ever developed. I recently had it flushed at Toyota so they know it's not 'due" for one.

ASSUMING jiffy lube (or whoever) can do it properly, I wonder if the Quaker State synthetic fluid they use is OK for the RX300. Of course, they claim it is, but I have no idea. I figure synthetic is probably better as a rule of thumb, assuming it is OK for that particular engine. Any opinions on Quaker State synthetic Tranny fluid?

btw, after about 200 mi. with the Auto-RX in the tranny fluid I have noticed a bit smoother shifting, as has my wife who didn't know I added it. Mine seemed fine already, so I'm in more of a PM stage on the cleanup. The fluid didn't look so good when I had it flushed at 55k mi. It's used and I'm not sure if the previous owner flushed it or not. The Auto-RX goes for about 1000 mi. then it is flushed out.

I know many would say not to screw while it's still under warranty, but I have no desire to have a failure after hitting 70k - I figure if the Auto-RX will help, it needs to be done sooner rather than when the tranny is on it's way out! I'll just lie to Lexus if anything happens under warranty (may sound "dishonest" but that's how the warranty game is played). If the failure were truely MY fault, then I'd own up to it. However, they use ANYTHING to point the blame back at the owner so I'll play their game.

I rather doubt that there is anything you can do to prevent your tramsaxle from failing "prematurely". Changing the ATF will undoubtedly help, but only delay the inevitable.

[lenore]

Please note that toyota dealerships locally are adding an additive to the tranny fluid which conditions it to supposedly last longer and provide better lubrication properties. So what is with that. I called three dealerships and they all do it. It is called Granitize conditioner and is not sold by the dealerships to the customers, but If you go online it is available. Has anyone tried this conditioner to their tranny fluid changes???

[monarch]

Granitize competes with the BG company for the specialty fluid conditioner / cleaner / additive business and fluid changing / recycling machine business of American car dealers including Toyota dealers. Car dealers (in the USA) like specialty conditioner / cleaner / additive products because they can charge the customer an arm and a leg for them to boost service dept. profits. Likewise American car dealers like to use specialty fluid changing and recycling machines so they can offer and sell highly profitable total fluid replacement jobs instead of less profitable partial drain and refill jobs.

[jgr7]

wwest, I couldn't tell you how many 01-03 RXs have more than 75K on the clock can you tell me how many 99-03 RXs were sold and how many have had transmission failures?

If this link works here is a sample of RXs within 500 miles of my house for sale. http://cars.kbb.com/go/search/fs_search_re...ifiedOnly=false

If you go near the bottom you will see some very high mileage early RXs.

My point is that the trans was designed to do just what you said it does. That is not a design flaw. It may be a poor application of the design but not a flaw or we would see thousands of failures. I still think that Lexus got some substandard friction plates that were mixed in with the good ones. Now the question would be did they know about it and just shuffle the deck with these bad plates hoping that there wouldn't be any problems, or did they not know. We still don't even know what is failing in these trannys so every thing we are talking about is just theory.

Jeff

[wwest]

wwest, I couldn't tell you how many 01-03 RXs have more than 75K on the clock can you tell me how many 99-03 RXs were sold and how many have had transmission failures?

If this link works here is a sample of RXs within 500 miles of my house for sale. http://cars.kbb.com/go/search/fs_search_re...ifiedOnly=false

If you go near the bottom you will see some very high mileage early RXs.

My point is that the trans was designed to do just what you said it does. That is not a design flaw. It may be a poor application of the design but not a flaw or we would see thousands of failures. I still think that Lexus got some substandard friction plates that were mixed in with the good ones. Now the question would be did they know about it and just shuffle the deck with these bad plates hoping that there wouldn't be any problems, or did they not know. We still don't even know what is failing in these trannys so every thing we are talking about is just theory.

Jeff

How often have you upshifted a manual transmission, or started out in too high a gear, to the point where there wasn't enough torque delivered to the drive wheels to move the vehicle so the clutch slipped...??

IMMHO that is exactly what is happening with the 99-2003 RX transaxles. The FIX that was instituted was the adoption of DBW in 2004 and beyond. Lexus even admits that DBW was adopted to "protect the drivetrain".

In my 2001 if I pay carefull attention, I can "feel" the upshift (or maybe into neutral..??) as I slow with brakes applied prior to coming to a full stop. Feeling as if bumped slightly from behind. There ia also the feeling of the "slingshot" effect if I fully release the accelerator pedal at 35-45 MPH and the transaxle upshifts.

It is not simple coincidence that these are the most common circumstances wherein owners of Toyota/Lexus vehicles with DBW complain of engine/transaxle delay/hesitation symptoms.

In both instances if the driver suddenly decides to GO, rather than coming to a full stop or continuing to coast down, the transaxle is suddenly caught in the wrong, too high, gear ratio. For 99-2003 that means lots of clutch slippage for maybe tens of milliseconds until the downshift clutches fully and firmly seat. For 2004 and later it means a delay of engine torque development until the downshift clutches can fully and firmly seat.

The ATF contamination isn't the base cause of transaxle failure, it is the result of undue HEAVY wear of the clutch frictional surfaces due to slippage beyond the original design parameters. Obviously it will help extend the working life of the transaxle if you keep the ATF more pristine.

Basically you're asking how long will the clutch surface last in my 2001 Porsche C4...

In my case probably over 100,000 miles...

But for the majority of Porsche owners.....WILDCARD!

[EdS]

Bear in mind that you have a far greater chance of getting financial assistance from your dealership than you do from Lexus Corporate....

I completely disagree with this statement. The dealer isn't going to do anything without Lexus corporate being behind it. The assistance will ultimately be given by the dealer, but they will be reimbursed by corporate.