midwesterner

Looks like maybe we're both right. Was meant to be a federal standard, but actually varies by manufacturer. Here's the best discussion I've seen: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=48&s_kwcid=AL!3756!3!50154925453!p!!g!!tire%20treadwear&ef_id=U217VQAAAJuI5@Tv:20150105230246:s So we've provided a lot of info and discussion; I am anxious to hear the outcome.

You are losing the war ...

Worth noting that any manufacturer's tires can fail. I think just about every manufacturer has been sued at one time or another. Warranty policy varies with manufacturer and retailer. Tread wear warranties are usually related to defects, I think. Road hazard warranty at extra cost is the protection against damage. Value is arguable, but worth exploring. Tire Rack has a road hazard warrant offering with most tires, I believe, and it is worth reading to understand what you get for the price. Looking back over more than 50 years of car ownership, and about 40 cars, I think I had one claim on warranty -- tread separation, I think -- and that was satisfactorily resolved. I've lost two tires to road debris, and neither was covered by road hazard warranty. In recent years, I've had the most success with Continental (which owns General and perhaps U..S. Royal among others) and Michelin. But that's to some extent because they were the OEM tires, and I have mostly bought new cars over the last 15 - 20 years. The best replacement tire I've used is the Conti DWS, which provided excellent handling and traction, was surprisingly quiet, and lived up to wear expectations. Using the DWS on the GS 350 might have some impact on mpg, as the OEM Michelins are eco-design. Tread wear ratings are similar. Conti makes an eco-design tire with a tread design similar to the DWS and competitive with the Michelin OEM tire. It might be a better choice if fuel consumption is a concern, but I doubt the difference would exceed 1 mpg. There's probably someone out there who knows the answer to this.

Difficult to generalize about tires, I think, as the same tires may perform differently with different vehicles (fwd vs rwd, type of suspension, weight, differing tire and wheel configurations, inflation, etc). I have had about equal luck with Continental and Michelin. Saab OEM tires were ContiProContact, and I had those on two Saabs with excellent reliability and performance, and predicted wear. I replaced one set with Yoko's and got good performance but premature wear. Some of that was caused by an alignment problem. Followed those with Conti DWS and was really impressed. I've also had good success with Goodyear and Firestone on other cars, and have Goodyears on my wife's RX. They are wearing well, relatively quiet, do well in the wet and snow. Bridgestone run-flats on my BMW Z4. I think factory engineers are pretty good these days about spec'ing tires for the car, at least for higher end models. Luxury car tires are selected for long wear, good ride, low noise. Sport versions, obviously, sacrifice some of the wear for increased performance in wet and higher cornering forces. Interestingly enough, the Tire Rack tests suggest that manufacturers are increasingly successful at producing tires with high performance characteristics combine with long wear. But if performance is your game, the OEMs probably won't do, especially if they are all-season. For the GS, I would lean toward the Conti or Michelin unless I had an authoritative source giving me an alternative. Dunlops are spec'd as OEM on a lot of European and Japanese sport sedans, and I think it's a conscious decision in favor of performance vs wear. Most of the Dunlops I see have a lower wear rating, although I'm not sure I've ever seen figures that suggest they are superior in other respects. Bridgestone, Continental, and Michelin seems to consistently wind up in the top three as tested by Tire Rack. Trick in the end, I think, is to match the tire to the car and the type of driving.

Would like to hear a report on resolution of this problem.

A little severe, probably, to hold the whole country responsible. Do we really know the source is in India? I'm not sure I believe that anybody could be stupid enough to believe a Lexus auto owners' / enthusiasts' site is a high-potential source for respondents. The intent is maybe more malicious; somebody's sick humor? In any case, other sites seems to be immune, so the screening technology must exist. There's not much incentive to use the site if we have to sort through all this trash to get to topics we want. Some of us will lust say goodbye.

I want to reinforce my caveat on going up on wheel size. It appears the car in question was delivered with 16" tires and wheels. I am not sure if there was a factory option for larger, but if there was, I'd be surprised if it exceeded 17". To go to 18" or 19" is a pretty big jump, and the tire to fit will likely have to go to a 50 aspect ratio or less. Lexus engineers put a lot of time into designing the suspension and matching the wheel and tire size. When dramatically changing tire and wheel size, everything is affected: ride, handling, emergency maneuvers, steering feel, possibly braking. If the OEM circumference is maintained, the effect is probably minimal, but the smaller aspect ratio will likely mean a harder ride, and it will affect steering and slip angles. Substantially wider wheels can increase wheel-bearing loads if the OEM offset is not maintained. My counsel to anybody contemplating such as change is: be careful and beware. From 16" to 17" is probably a safe upgrade. Larger? Maybe more negatives than positives -- and cost goes up.

Have been thinking about this. A check with Tire Rack site shows the Dunlop 5100s with a much lower mileage (tread wear) rating than the OEM Michelins, and at 25K the Dunlops should be approaching replacement as I read the data. That would account for a substantial amount of road noise, I would think. Appears the Dunlops were the "aggressive" OEM option, or maybe it was just a supply / availability issue when the car was manufactured. Continental has an a tire competitive with the Michelin, eco-rated but tread similar to DWS, and substantially less expensive than the Michelin. The Michelin did a little better in the Tire Rack tests on a BMW 3-series, assuming equal results on a GS 350. If I were replacing tires on mine, I'd look at these two. If alignment is correct and no other factors found, I would think either the Conti's or Michelins would make the car as quiet as mine, with little or no sacrifice in performance.

I participate in 2 - 3 other websites, automotive and timepieces, on which spam postings don't seem to be a problem. Some technology or software available, perhaps, that prevents this kind of spamming? Seems there ought to be a better method than webmaster having to go in a clean up after the storm. If we can lay hands on the spammer, maybe we can transport him or her to Colorado for a permanent toke.

I think our first Honda was a 1990 Accord Anniversary Edition. Had been driven by the Honda dlr's wife and we bought it at year-end. Very nice car but a bit underpowered. It morphed into a series of Accords for my wife, and two Preludes for me (92 Si and 2000 SH). We like the sedans because the Hondas came closest of the Japanese manufacturers to European handling and suspension, the cars were bulletproof and required only routine service, and the switchgear was precise and beautifully executed. Best of the bunch was probably the '03 Accord V6 -- the car that was replaced by the RX350 when a family member died and we bought it out of the estate. Had a few Japanese rental cars on business trips and vacations over the years. One of the best was a Mazda 3 a few years ago. A little noisy and could have used more power, but handling rivaled my Saab. One of the worst was a Toyota Avalon 10 or so years back. It was quiet, but had the ride and handling qualities of an aging 80s Buick, and probably the worst brakes I ever experienced on any car. Very soft, way to much pedal travel, and long stopping distance. Absolutely put me off Toyota. The Lexuses (Lexii? Lexae?) are in another league. Took the GS350 up to Chicago for the family Christmas, and was once again impressed by its poise and stability on the road, its relative effortlessness at everything, and ability to carve a line on curvy roads and freeway ramps.

Well, maybe the fumes have blown over into the midwest with the storm ^_^ .

Two choices: 1. Shop locally for tires and wheels in your price range -- may need to come from different sources, including possible used OEM wheels that might meet your objectives. 2. Go to Tire Rack (www.tirerack.com?) and look for combinations you like. You get help on-line or by phone. Tire rack will ship the tires, mounted and balanced, and all you need to do is put 'em on. I'm guessing the cheapest wheel you'll find is about $150 - $200 (so $600 - $800 for the wheels, and a like amount for tires. With luck, you might come up with a pkg around $1200 plus shipping. Read the tests and user reviews on the tires, remembering to discount the most radically dissatisfied and the fanatically fervent. Make sure that any wheel larger in circumference than the OEM will fit in the wheel well, and no interference with front fenders when turning. Generally speaking, going up in wheel size means commensurate reduction in tire aspect ratio to match the original fit. Given that Lexus does a good job of matching wheel and tire configurations, you might want to stick to OEM size wheels and invest in a good all-season performance tire such as the Continental DWS. That would probably be my choice.

Different view of the world in the old days. Manufacturing processes, materials and fastener technology didn't exist to build cars (or much else) not susceptible to rust. Given the average trade-in of about 3 yrs, the cost of whatever process might have been available (galvanizing?) probably not worth the cost -- especially if the car had a first-owner life and second-owner life before rust became a problem. My '55 Olds hardtop rusted through the upper right quarter panel because of a rubber anti-rattle below the rear window that held moisture. Rocker panels went because they filled with slush and salt in the winter, or rain in the summer, along with dirt and debris. One of the biggest factors as probably been fastener development. No longer necessary to penetrate metal with a rivet or bolt, or crimp a seam. New chemical bonding technology and replacement of certain metal components with plastic or composite material strikes me as a big step. It may be that manufacturers were oblivious as well, but I really think that manufacturing and materials technology is what made the change possible.

Cult following for the early Zs. I think I read something about a trend to find old Zs and restore with parts now available, sort of like that outfit down in TX is doing with Jeep Wagoneers.

Just had 60K svc on wife's RX350. Can't remember the exact amount, but I think it was between $300 - $500. There is no "tune-up;" nothing to tune. See the major svc items in the owner's manual. When I was a kid and worked on cars, a tune-up included carburetor adjustment, replacement of points and condenser in the distributor, setting timing, and cleaning or replacement of spark plugs. On modern automobiles, the carb is replaced by fuel injection, and all functions are controlled by the engine control computer (ECM). Plugs last for extended periods, and typically do not need to be replaced at low mileage. The service requirements for virtually all cars at the specified intervals includes oil and filter changes, maybe tire rotation and alignment checks, and not much else. The major services may include brake fluid and coolant changes, and in some cases, replacement of the serpentine belt. So whenever I hear about a "tune-up," I wonder what it is that the shop is trying to sell people. I think $1150 for a service is Ferrari territory. I'd check with another dealer.

Actually, the early Japanese cars had significant rust problems -- original 240Zs among the worst. Southerners and West Coasters may not have experienced this,but the salt used during the winter in the East and Midwest exposed this weakness in many Japanese cars. This was happening, as I recall, just about the time U.S. and European manufacturers were introducing new metals, fasteners, and metal treatments (e.g. galvanizing) to solve the problem. During the transition, various types of body rustproofing were popular -- and I think reasonably effective -- aftermarket means of preventing rust (different than old-fashioned undercoating). I think one was called armor-something, or something-armor, but there were others, and national changes of these providers popped up all around the country. The Japanese quickly learned the path to success was through consistent quality,and they quickly sought solutions. In the end, all the majors (U.S., Europe, Japan) made use of new technology that virtually eliminated the rust problems of prior decades, and warranties began to include rust-through. Among the problem areas were seams and fasteners, and once the techniques evolved to address these, the familiar rust spots (e.g. rocker panels) disappeared pretty fast. Now we seldom think of rust, and a relatively late model car with rust is usually a tip-off that it's been wrecked and poorly repaired. When I lived in the U.K., it was common to see cars 10-20 years old in daily service that showed little or no rust.

Dangerous territory here! What makes a car a "woman's car" more than a "man's car?" I suppose that historically sports and high-performance cars have appealed to men more than women, but my wife would be as comfortable in a Cayenne or an X5 as the RX. In fact, the RX came to us as a result of a death in the family about the time we were ready to replace her previous car. Where we live in the middle of the midwest, I think they are popular because they are reliable, have lots of amenities, and are easy to drive. They deal reasonably well with snow, especially in awd configuration, and provide a good field of vision from the driver's seat. They haul all the kids stuff, plus the kids, and go to the soccer fields and parks as well as the country club. Nobody really expects to take into serious off-road conditions. Lots of guys my age around here drive 'em, but these are not "car" guys, and most of them would find a Jeep Grand Cherokee too truck-like. they like the Lexus because it is smooth, reliable, provides reasonably good performance, and hauls the golf clubs or fishing gear, or the weekend do-it-yourself purchases. Again, none of 'em are going to head for the Rubicon Trail. I find the RX to be OK, but would be a little more enthusiastic with a sport suspension. It is comfortable on a long drive, but lacks the precision and athleticism of my GS350. If I had to start from a clean sheet of paper and select an SUV, the RX would fall behind Acura, BMW, and maybe a few others. On the other hand, my wife would no doubt happily choose another RX, as she has become accustomed to it and likes the luxury features. If you told her she could have anything she wanted and that somebody else would write the check, it might be an X5. So which is the "woman's car?"

I find this curious. My '13 gs350 awd came with the Michelins, and I find them pretty quiet. I would think factory spec tires would be fairly consistent across manufacturers -- noise, traction, tread design, rolling resistance, etc. Tire noise sometimes comes from aggressive tread design, with more aggressive treads generating more noise. So if tread design and other specs are fairly consistent, I guess I'd want to see what other variable might explain the noise. With 25K on them, the tires are about half worn, presumably, and that might account for an increase in road noise. If tread wear is not equal across the tire, then maybe there's an alignment problem which might contribute to increased noise levels. Any new tire that matches factory specs will likely be quieter than worn tires. Worth noting, though, that the Cont DWS I had on my Saab were extremely quiet, even with a somewhat more aggressive tread. Would be useful to have a report on what you find out. If I were shopping for replacements, I'd be looking at the Michelins and the equivalent Continentals, maybe Bridgestones -- but there may be lots of other good choices.

That makes more sense. I was surprised at the idea Lexus would provide a limited slip diff in the age of electronics, but thought maybe so on earlier models. I'm not sure any manufacturer currently offers mechanical traction control, especially since electronic systems manage so many other variables. Thanks for the clarification.

Air-cooled; so you wanna hear about my Corvair Spyder? Short take: I think Nader was right (but it was pretty fast). Two high-performance Preludes; one in the mid-90s before I moved to the U.K., a 2000 Prelude SH after I moved back. Looked good, reasonably fast and good handling, made all the right noises. But in the end, not quite a sports car. My hat is off to anyone who has owned an air-cooled Porsche and a Boxster!

I see someone has posted for a "swami trumpet." Is that a modern accessory, perhaps the present day equivalent of the Bermuda clanging bells that J.C. Whitney used to offer in the 50s? Or an aah-ooga horn? Can be fitted to any Lexus using only simple tools? Really, isn't there a way to manage this stuff on the site? I grew up in the 60s, have been in the army, and am no prude --but this stuff de-values what is supposed to be an enthusiast site for exchange of automotive information and civil debate. Other sites in which I participate seem to avoid these attacks, and I'd think this one could also. Besides, I get my love potions from a shop in town; I don't need a web source, and I have my palms read by the sorceress who flies the spaceship where Elvis Presley is living .

I think that, technically, the correct term is "engine." Dennis Simanaitis, former SAE engineer and long-time R&T tech editor, discussed the question a couple of years ago in his column, and made a distinction between an engine and a motor. I guess if you are not sitting in a physics exam it probably doesn't matter much, but I understand there is a difference. The Brits use the term interchangeably like us, but it often has broader meaning. When I first moved there in 1996, and brought home my new Mercedes, my landlord said, "Oh, I like your motor!" So I won't argue with anyone over "crate motor" or "crate engine."

I think the advent of ready-to-install engines to the public came fairly late in the game. Crate motor became the term for a new engine supplied by the factory, especially high-performance engines, as opposed to buying used engines and rebuilding. Correct terminology is "engine," but the slang "motor" has been around since day one of the so-called motor age. I've also heard people refer to "crate engines," so the "motor" reference is not universal. Not sure either that there is a single, commonly accepted definition of a crate engine. Maybe somebody here knows.

Positraction is, I believe, a brand or trade name for a limited-slip differential. These are mechanical arrangements that use clutches, as I recall, and are aimed at reducing / controlling wheelspin on acceleration or in cornering where one wheel may lose traction. These differentials were a must back in the muscle-car days, and essential on the dragstrip. I don't think limited slips had much affect at higher speeds, and would not have approached the effect of electronic traction control. In simplest terms, modern electronic traction controls rely on reducing power delivery to the spinning wheel or, under certain circumstances such as hard cornering and tight curves, applying the brake. Not sure if they just sense differences in traction or can read lateral acceleration. I think the latest versions in BMW M-series and similar cars is very complex. If the earlier LS had an "old fashioned" limited-slip diff, the affect would be as described in the earlier post -- would allow high-power cornering without loss of traction and high lateral acceleration. As in "yee-haw!"

Weight difference maybe, but also maybe faster reflexes? Or both.