Yes I'm A Newbie With A Question On Purchasing A Used 1999 Lexus R

[Crying Freeman]

Hi All,

I'll considering a purchase for a 1999 Lexus RX300 with 82k miles for a dealer cash price of under $12k.

I can probably haggle it from $10k to $11k.

My question is about the reliability and dependability of a 8 year old SUV.

Please respond with your thoughts....

[Rx330driver]

depends if its AWD or not.

before my 2004 RX330, i had a 1999 AWD RX300.

note: that first RX was the best car i had owned up until this point. I had no major problems with it, even though it was a first year production model

now, for the bad news. The RX300 AWD transmission has had many complaints and many have needed a new transmission which will cost thousands, at your point, not under warranty. Also, there is a major problem with oil sludge (ask a trusty mechanic to check that out).

beware that you have a first year model, with some significant mileage on there. I used mine till 90K actually, but i might have just gotten a lucky one.

[wwest]

depends if its AWD or not.

before my 2004 RX330, i had a 1999 AWD RX300.

note: that first RX was the best car i had owned up until this point. I had no major problems with it, even though it was a first year production model

now, for the bad news. The RX300 AWD transmission has had many complaints and many have needed a new transmission which will cost thousands, at your point, not under warranty. Also, there is a major problem with oil sludge (ask a trusty mechanic to check that out).

beware that you have a first year model, with some significant mileage on there. I used mine till 90K actually, but i might have just gotten a lucky one.

"depends on if its AWD or not.."

I'm not so sure all of the votes have been counted on this one yet.

The AWD model will undoubtedly put more stress on the transaxle and that would UNDOUBTEDLY result in earlier and a higher number, overall, of premature transaxle failures. The failures seem to occur at about 70-100,000 miles and here we have a '99 model with 82k miles. ~10,000 miles/year, is that high or low for the US fleet?

Setting here typing this, 1st coffee in hand, put me to wondering again about these transaxle failure.

I traded up from a 2000 AWD RX300 to a 2001 AWD RX300 just as soon as the latter came out. My primary reason was to get HID headlamps as at age 60+ my eyesight was not as good at night as it once was. But the '01 also had VSC/TC/EBD/BA along with ABS. It wasn't long before I began to question the idea of a VC, viscous clutch/coupling based AWD system AND TC (Traction Control), at least TC as implemented on my '01 RX300.

In order for the VC to "lockup", partially couple the rear driveline into the front, the disparate rotational rate resulting from slipping of the front wheels vs the rear must exist for at least a few seconds. The two sets of clutches plates rotate in different directions, higher and higher in rate as the difference in F/F traction, wheelspin/slip grows.

That results in heating of the VC fluid within the hermetically sealed VC case. The fluid, which is specifically formulating for an exceedingly high expansion rate with temperature rise increases in pressure, thereby raising the coupling coefficient between the two sets of plates effectively "locking: the otherwise fully open center diff'l.

The problem with my '01 AWD RX300 is that the instant those front wheels develop even the slightest level of wheelspin/slip the Traction Control system activates and begins to moderately brake, "pulse" modulate the braking at the front. That, of course, as in the MB ML320, would result in maintaining a high level of driveline, engine, torque, and the rear wheels would be forced to pick up some of the "drive" load.

Maybe in the ML320, but not in my '01 RX.

At the same time TC begins braking the front wheels it also quickly dethrottles the engine.

'01 RX300 AWD......NOT!

But then I have known that pretty much from the get-go and made compensations accordingly...called a 1994 AWD Ford Aerostar for when the going gets rough. Snow and ice mind you, NOT, NEVER, off-road.

But, back to the sbject at hand.

Does the TC in my '01 AWD RX300 activate to help me get unstuck or just up and going or since the VC should, would ordinarily, be used for that is the TC "tuned" to protect the drive train?

I know that in my '92 LS400 when TC activates the simplest, BEST, thing to do is reah over and turn it off and then do your own throttle feathering to get out of those tough "go" spots. The '92 LSes TC not only pulse brakes the drive, rear, wheels, it also quickly dethrottles the engine. Later Lexus RWD models with TC will still instantly pulse brake the rear will but will delay the onset of dethrottle to get the driver time to react to the conditions and "lift" the throttle and then begin feathering it so as to move forward.

I have always wondered, since the TC implementation makes it virtually useless, why my '01 even had a VC. Then the VC was dropped for the entire Toyota and Lexus FWD based AWD fleet with the advent, time of, the RX330 introduction. Apparently it has returned for the RX350 series but as yet, insofar as I can determine, not any of the other products.

Has anyone out there enough experience, wintertime experience, in the RX350, to be able to say if the TC activates immediately or is it delayed to allow the VC to be effective, somewhat effective?

Since Toyota and Lexus have now acknowledged that DBW was adopted primarily to "protect the drive train". Kkeep the engine "at bay", dethrottled, until a downshift for acceleration, one proceeded by a lift-throttle upshift, could complete.

So it isn't so outlandish to propose that TC, as implemented in my '01 and later RX300's, was also done to protect the drive train, prevent the premature trasaxle failure from carrying over to the nest and succeeding MY products.