jaswood

Coolant lever sensor/float failure is also not that uncommon.

My '01 "awd" RX300 gets 22-23 MPG, consistently, traveling the 800 miles to central MT from Seattle, 70-80 MPH once out of WA. Most reports of RXh FE seem to be about the same.

What I was, have been, trying to point out is that the THS system ALWAYS operates as if there will be upcoming opportunities to regain HV battery SOC via the need for braking or during "coastdown" (simulation of engine compression braking using the power generation capability. My experience has been that traveling on the highway, say with CC set, the THS system will make use of the SOC for even minor levels of (re-)acceleration. It will do so until the SOC reaches enough of a low point that the THS begins the "default" recharge method, the ICE. Once instituding the default recharge method it will now remain in that mode until a reasonably higher SOC is reached. On a drive from Seattle to Portland, ~145 miles, I see it repeat that cycle numerous times. It is for that reason that I suspect better highway FE could be attained if the system could be "told", in advance, that there will be NO future free energy recovery opportunities in the near term, so bias the reacceleration torque needs toward the ICE.

....

If you start out with headlamps that are not self-leveling and/or AFS then upgrading to get those features working will be a SERIOUS challenge, additional ECU and rear axle level sesnor required, stearing wheel position sesnor signal "tap" for AFS. Installing self-leveling headlamps assemblies without the control capability might require constant attention, manual adjustment of level position on a regular basis.

The probability that a '94 engine/transmission ECU control system will be compatible with a more technologically advanced '98 engine/transmission is between none and zero. For instance the '94 did not make use of the more modern day wideband knock/ping sensors, and in what year did the LS start using coil-on-plug ignition..? And what about DBW, the '94 wasn't, the '98....?

This is what happens when you operate halogen bulbs at substandard suppy voltages for long periods of time. These came out of my '01 RX300 high beam socket. My RX now has LEDs for DRL. DRL voltage = <6VDC Due to the positive temperature coefficient of the filament, the lower the voltage the lower is the filament resistance, and the glass encapsulation actually melts due to the excessive heat. This

Not exact, but this is the retrofit kit type/style I installed in my '01 Porsche C4. The C4 had factory projector type hi/lo HID headlamps. The OEM system worked with the apperture shading always in place but with a motorized upward shift of the entire assembly in high beam mode. "Flipping" the shading apperture out of the beam pattern path offers a much brighter beam pattern illumination area. http://www.ebay.com/itm/G8-HID-Bi-xenon-Projector-Lens-Kit-H4-H1-H7-H13-9004-9007-9005-9006-4300K-6000K-/110822128863?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item19cd837cdf

so your saying is the rx330-rx400h 04-09 will fit the 08 rx350? hmm.. I really am looking for just decent projector headlights for HIDs wihtou AFS nor auto level. The car didnt equip with AFS so no need to get AFS then right? This is what I came across over my searches but its way too pricey. http://jdmautolights...a48c1391989c7cd And this one from ebay but too good to be true. Half off from the link above. but the first one is fancy looking dunno how the output will look. http://www.ebay.com/...ssories&vxp=mtr wondering anyone out there who bought or upgraded willing to help me find decent Projector headlights for my vehicle. greatly appreciated. I have successfully converted 3 LS400 models to HID, a 91, 92 and a 95. A Ford E350 24' MH, a 78 Porsche Targa. an '88 Porsche Carrera, all using hi/lo HID upgrade/adapter/retrofit kits. In the case of the '78 I upgraded to projector type HID that uses, internally, a electric solenoid to moves a low cutoff shading apperture into position for low beam mode. Due to space limitations within the Porsche headlight "buckets" I had to use the "micro" ballasts. None of these conversions resulted in any additional level of light "splatter", and in most cases the low beam cutoff was much sharper that with the OEM halogens.

That will NOT work. The electronics control systems, computers, networking, etc, for the '98 is highly advanced technology in comparison to the '91. You can move the '98 engine/transmssion control computer into the '91 but you will still be missing the datalink networking aspects upon which the '98's engine computer relies for communication with the many other system control computers.

You know there is an internal combustion engine in a hybrid that can output more torque for climbing an incline JUST like a regular non hybrid vehicle. The extra torque does not ONLY have to come from the electric motors. The THS computer does a pretty good job of figuring out which one will be more efficient in any given situation. "...there is an internal combustion engine in a hybrid..." Yes...but. That is an Atkinsonized IC engine that sacrifices, in favor of improving FE, about 30% of the torque level an engine of that displacement volume would normally produce. Thus a 2L engine acts like a 1.4L. Think of the electric as "turbocharger" used to raise the overall torque level back up, in most cases even beyond a 2L ICE level. "....The THS computer does a pretty good job..." Well, yes...and no. These hybrids need, desparately so, a "mode" switch (shades of Edson DeCastro). They need a way that would allow the driver to "tell" the THS computer that "for now" there will be little or no opportunity for recovering "FREE" energy. The THS, as a result of being in this new highway "ECO" cruise mode would avoid use of the hybrid battery SOC except for extraodinarily deep depressions of the accelerator pedal. So with cruise control enabled there would be NO use of the SOC for normal "re-acceleration" rates. In reality cruise control enabled could be used as the "switch" to highway "ECO" mode. "...engine...can output more torque..." Yes, exactly my point.... Yes, but if the battery SOC is high enough then it is much more fuel efficient to make use of that SOC rather than asking the ICE to produce that extra level of torque. Only the driver has the knowledge required for the "understanding" of FE "futures", so now the thing that is required is a way to convey that knowledge to the THS computer.

Your MKZ not only weighs less than your RX but also has a relatively small Atkinsonized 4 cylinder. The MKZ may have been updated to DFI as of 2012.

For ONLY hwy driving 22 MPG for the RXh would be about right. Hybrid cars have no advantage if there is no opportunity to regain energy for FREE, energy that would otherwise be lost as HEAT through braking, friction or compression. Actually hybrids are at a distinct disadvantage, in your case an actual RX350 would likely get greater FE by 2-3 MPG on that same trip. The disadvantage arises from the fact that every time you accelerate or "pull" up an incline, the extra torque required will be supplied by relying on the electric motor torque. In doing so the HV battery SOC will decline and the only method available for recharging it will be to slightly elevate the ICE output torque for relatively long periods of time. Highly "lossy" procedure, that.

"...What???????..." Does that indicate a full and complete lack of understanding or only partial, specific...?

There is a much more complete, comprehensive C-BEST list of options that the (st,d)ealer can set at your request.

I have no idea just what might happen with lugging the engine due to the failure of the driver downshiftng appropriately with a manual transmission. Maybe a CEL indication or maybe even "you deserve the results you get if you're that stupid".

Sounds as if your (st,d)ealers son needs tuition money.

None of us, I suspect, are saying the early RX transaxle design isn't flawed, just that our experience, combined, indicates that Lexus wasn't even willing to address these failures back much earlier, so why would they start 10 years "out". As of the RX330 the flaw was addressed, "papered over" via the use of DBW to prevent rising engine torque until the current gear selection could be fully completed. Consider yourself lucky, as do I. My '01 "AWD" RX300 is now at ~90,000 miles, I didn't expect to reach that mileage, but certainly not to the level you have reached.

Don't expect any voluntary help from Lexus.

"...same amount of power but fuel efficiency improved by 35%..." Wow, that is astounding.

I have an '01 "AWD" RX300 w/HID headlights. I traded up from an '00 in order to get HID, TC and VSC. The '01 uses "reflector" type HID assembly and not only that upon inspection of a friend's '00 the reflector assembly appears to be the same. Granted, projector beam headlight assemblies, HID and Halogen, off a more tightly focussed, sharper cutoff, low beam. But it appears that many manufacturers are sticking with the same old reflector assemblies .

With any luck at all we might soon see an LS4X0h R/awd using the GS's DFI V6 but with Atkinsonization. But maybe not until gas gets above $5.00

Cranks, but doesn't start, or....?? If it doesn't crank, starter motor "clicks", then I would suspect starter bendix operated solenoid contacts or starter motor brushes are worn out.

I assume when you say refueled, you mean using 87 octane and not filling up the gas tank. The only way the RX know what octane you are using is by sensing for knocks and pings, I am sure it doesnt have a on-board octane analyzer. The ECU is program for 91 octane, so it will always try to run in that mode even after the it is de-tuned due to knocking. As soon as it is de-tuned, the ECU will slowly try to go back to the normal mode, until knocking is sensed again. The ECU does not stay de-tuned. No, what I was trying to say, granted, somewhat obliquely, is that once the ECU "discovers" that you have fueled with regular, it has no reason to "try" premium level POWER fuel mixtures until it "sees" that you have again refueled. But even were it was as you say, continually(***) "pushing" the performance evelope, the result would be detected so quickly and at such a low detonation level that even long term engine damage would be minimum. *** There are really only 2 causes, times, that detonation from octane levels might be an issue to be dealt with, 1, WOT, FULL cylinder fills, and/or, 2, engine lugging. With automatic transmissions this latter issue simply doesn't exist, the transaxle will typically be downshifted, and/or DBW will be used to delay rising engine torque, before the engine approaches the lugging point. So, how often do you use WOT, for that is the only time a detonation "test", continuous test, might need to be made.

Automotive manufacturers are not currently, nor in the past, well modivated to provide a reasonable function level of GPS/Nav. That is now changing in much the same way it happened in the pastwith radio/cd/audio systems. For the moment portable GPS/Nav systems have a definite competive edge. And not just because they include lifetime map undating. I have recently had a reasonably long, extended, experience with comparing the perfromance of a recent automotive "captive" GPS/nav with an also current model Garmin handheld. It seemed to me that the garmin would always find the quickest or shortest route much better than the captive system. What was amazing to me was that as I followed the Garmin directions the captive system would re-compute and end up "finding" the same routing, so the "map" resolution, definitions, was apparently the same for both. I can see that the "quickest" routing might be a subjective thing, roadspeed wise, but the shortest should never be.