jkatsoudas

Check out the Bridgestone Dueler Alenza's. I just put a set on my RX400h, and I've been very impressed with how smooth and quiet they are compared to the OEM Michelins.

I've toyed with the idea of going to some place like this: http://www.premierupholstery.com/index and having them replace the foam with something firmer and possibly build up the bolsters and lumbar support a bit. I've talked to them over the phone, and it's something they can definitely do- it's just a question of how much I want to spend. I haven't had a chance to go in yet and have them give me a quote. No idea on the steering column- that one will likely be tougher to solve.

LOL- I was gonna say that he wasn't paying attention in high school physics, but he may not have gotten to that class yet. <_< Dude, Goofygrin, you're not lifting up the WHOLE car to change the flat (or if you are, you've got bigger problems than a scissor jack). Go pull up the corner of your mattress with one hand. Does that feel like you're lifting the weight of the whole mattress?

Many thanks to everyone who's contributed to this thread, and to RXREY's tire thread. I was driving along the freeway the other day and a truck in front of me dropped a ladder in the road. It was rush hour, so swerving into another lane to avoid it was out of the question. The best I could do was get far enough over so that I only ran over it with the two left-side wheels. Both suffered cuts in the sidewalls, though only one started leaking. That one held air long enough that I was able to get off the freeway before the low tire pressure indicator came on. Long story short- I put a set of Bridgestone Alenza's in 255/55 R18 on the car yesterday. It's been raining a lot here lately so I have no interest in testing their handling characteristics at the moment, but my initial impression is that they are a lot smoother and quieter than the Michelins they replaced (and I think they look nicer too). As I pondered this decision the other night and was debating whether I wanted to go with the larger tire size or not (and the associated speedo error) I decided I'd do a quick test. Since I had the old tires on the car, I reset the odometer and took a measurement on my commute to work. the odometer, with the original tires, put the trip at 15.0 miles. Two independent sources: http://www.mapmyride.com/ and http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/ put the trip at 15.3 miles. I then put the new tires on and retested today and got 14.7 miles. So, this tells me that the new tires introduce some additional error, but that there was already error present with the original tires. A quick calculation puts the error at 3.9% with the new tires, up from 2.0% with the old tires. This translates to an error of 2.5mph (low) at 65mph, or an error of 2,500 miles low on the odometer over 100,000 miles. Not a huge deal in my book. Nonetheless, I'm still looking into ways to calibrate the speedo. Calls into the local dealership parts/service department and to Lexus corporate have yielded nothing, as the canned response is that Lexus does not recommend modifications to the vehicle, including the installation of non-factory sized tires. On my old Bronco I was able to replace a $5 plastic speedo drive gear with a different ratio to compenstate for larger tires. I'm still investigating whether such a part exists for this vehicle, or whether there's a computer adjustment that's possible. I'll post if I come across anything.

Ahhhh, I sense an aftermarket opportunity. "Retrofit kit w/ larger rear electric motor new computer chip turns RX400h into a Porsche Killer!" Can it also please defeat the "I agree" screen? :whistles:

It's true. Spare tire pressure was one of the things the dealership checked when checking out the "check tire inflation" error I was getting.

Well, I'm a much happier MBZ owner than Lexus owner at the moment. I went to pick up the RX at lunch today and found TWO dings in the driver's door. One on the edge of the bump strip that had taken all the paint off, and another on the door itself near the edge. It's about 1/2" in from the edge where the sheetmetal folds over on itself and they can't get a tool in there to remove it "paintlessly" so it now needs to go back in to be repaired and have both drivers-side doors painted.

LOL!

Nope. Just a happy MBZ owner. Edit- actually, that's pretty funny. I would have pegged you for a Lexus employee in some fashion as you're alway coming across as a Lexus apologist.

I wasn't necessarily considering dumping the car due to one malfunction (though I have several other issues with the car that I've mentioned in other posts). I was mostly curious if anyone else has experienced similar issues.

I'm not assuming anything. As I stated, I received a call from the dealership yesterday and was informed that the "engine computer" (their words) had malfunctioned and they needed to order a new one which will take several days to get. I'm quite familiar with the extremely annoying yet benign warning lights that pop up for everything from required maintenance to low washer fluid. This was quite different from those. Imagine every warning light on your dash on, and the LCD screen cycling through various "check xxxxx" messages.

Why, to protect from stray shopping carts, of course! It's a jungle out there!

Yes, it seems odd to me as well, but it's the only thing I can think of. I drove the car home Thursday night and it was fine. Our driveway is pretty steep and I had backed it in with the nose pointing down, so the only thing I can think of is that the angle of the car allowed water to run down into places it wouldn't normally go if the car was level. Just speculation on my part...

"..I called the dealership and they said to bring it in on Saturday..." On a flatbed...?? Or did you drive it in? Did it drive normal except for all the indicator lights..? I drove it in. It drove normally other than the warning lights. I was watching the energy screen to make sure I wasn't discharging the high voltage batteries since the "check hybrid system" warning was on. Also, since the VSC was off and there was plenty of standing water all over the road I was taking it really easy.

We had our first big rain of the season here in Norcal on Friday. We had 2" of rain in a matter of a couple of hours (I know, this is trivial compared to some areas), with 60 mph winds gusting to 105 mph. Lots of branches and debris all over the place and lots of homes without power (luckily we didn't lose power). I hopped in the RX that afternoon to run a quick errand, and was greeted with a host of error messages: "Check hybrid system", "Check tire inflation", "VSC off"... the car was not a happy camper. I called the dealership and they told me to bring it in on Saturday. I got a call today and the engine computer is toast. Geez, I knew that the RX wasn't a real SUV but this thing hates inclement weather even more than I thought. Anyone else experienced rain/snow/water related issues with their electronics?

Have you guys seen the WAAG bars? Look pretty nice to me. NeoN, I know you mentioned that you preferred SS, but these are pretty cool http://waag.com/showroom/200.php

This is great info, but why on earth would you do all of this, since you can't even use the phone book when you're driving? I programmed 6 quick dial buttons for my most frequently used numbers and I do all the rest of the dialing from my iPhone contact list or iPhone keypad directly.

Since we (OK, I :whistles: ) have totally derailed this conversation from it's original topic, I'll ask something else that's been bugging me lately. I recently looked into getting a scooter or motorcycle of some sort for my daily commute as an even more economical alternative to the RX on fair weather days. What I found was alarming (to me). Scooters capable of being ridden on the highway (like the Honda Silverwing) only get about 50 mpg and motorcycles typically get less than that, from what I've seen. Sure, there are little scooters that can get 70-80 mpg, but these aren't real commute options for me. So, if a car like the RX can get 30+ mpg on a good day, why on earth are these things only marginally more fuel efficient? They are far lighter, have a much smaller frontal area, are more aerodynamic, have lower drivetrain friction and rolling resistance... I would expect 100+ mpg out of these things easily. What am I missing? (mind you, I'm totally ignorant in motorcycles). Is it just that there's been no real push or market demand to improve fuel economy on motorcycles? I'd jump on a scooter that got 100+ mpg in a heartbeat at least 4 out of 5 workdays if it existed.

I totally agree that it's all about cost. I heard someone say recently that you could have had an iPod in 1970. It was technically feasible at that time. The problem was that it would have cost about $1M and would have been the size of a large room. Fast forward to today. The past century has seen an ever-increasing rate of technological innovation that has made many things possible that were thought to be impossible even a few decades ago. That's why I have to laugh when I hear people say that hydrogen will never be commercially viable because it's just too expensive. Why should we have any reason to think that innovation and technological advancement will suddently stop? The real problem, in my mind, is that non-renewable resources and/or polluting resources are priced as if they are in infinite supply and have no environmental impact. If the cost of gas included a tax commensurate with it's impact to the environment and it's true cost in terms of net present value, you would see a lot of behavior change very quickly. I personally welcome $6 gas because I think that it will take something like this to finally drive large-scale public transportation infrastructure in the US like you see in Europe. (of course, my degree is in political economics of natural resources, so I may a bit biased on this :whistles: )

Hehehe- Jim, it's even worse than that. The RX actually HATES engaging the rear wheels when traction is lost. It takes this as some sort of personal offense. When I first bought the car last winter I came across a spot in the road one morning where a patch of water had frozen over. I intentionally came to a stop with the front wheels on the ice patch, and put the display on the energy screen, as you said. I was very curious to see what the car would do. I stepped on the gas and, sure enough, the front wheels spun and the car immediately kicked on the rear electric motor, but the car protested this abuse rather vocally. There was a big yellow warning light flashing and alarm bells going off as if doom was imminent. To hear a supposed AWD vehicle protest a patch of ice the size of a twin matress so violently was rather comical in it's absurdity.

Rey- thanks for the photos. Those tires look awesome on the RX. Does anyone have similar pictures with 255/50 18's? I like how the 255/55's fill the fender well, but the 255/50 is the closer match to the original 235/55's diameter-wise so there would be no impact to speedo readings. Here's a good calculator to play with: http://www.1010tires.com/TireSizeCalculato...p?action=submit The 255/50's are 0.5% larger than stock, while the 255/55's are 3% larger. Not a huge difference from a speedo reading standpoint, but the calculator brings up the following warning which is a little disconcerting "Warning! When changing tire sizes, we recommend staying within 3% of the diameter of the original tire. Any more than this and you face the risk of brake failure." Now, that's not a fun prospect. I can see how increased rotating mass could overwhelm brakes that were not designed for that load. Rey- have you experienced any decrease in braking performance from the larger tires?

You know, I'm torn on the issue of hydrogen. I've heard the "5 miracles" argument before. On the one hand, I don't see anything on that list that's more daunting than, for example, putting a man on the moon. Undoubtedly it will take revolutionary engineering, but I do think it's a solvable problem. On the other hand, some people/agencies (like the CARB) are using hydrogen as an excuse to not pursue other options that are more near-term. If this were a true free market economy the situation would resolve itself but as long as the oil companies and others with financial interests in one particular technology keep meddling, the most efficient solution will not come to market.

Newsflash- whether you like it or not, the RX is a crossover SUV (in fact, it's ironic that according to Wikipedia the RX300 coined the phrase) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_SUV A crossover SUV (also called CUV for Crossover Utility Vehicle) or XUV (not to be confused with GMC's Envoy XUV) is an automobile with a sport utility vehicle appearance but is built upon a more economical and fuel-efficient unibody construction. The CUV nomenclature was created by automotive marketing departments to move away from the station wagon, which has declined in popularity, and the SUV, which has been stigmatized by some people in American culture as environmentally-unfriendly, over-sized, and wasteful with fuel. The word "CUV" or "Crossover" is not a ubiquitous term and is primarily used by people in the automotive industry. The nomenclature's unpopularity may be due to the fact that some CUVs are compact- to mid-sized SUVs built with car drivetrains and suspensions (Lexus RX330, BMW X3), while most CUVs are actually station wagons or 5-door hatchbacks with truck-like characteristics such as elevated suspensions and upright seating (Volvo XC90, Ford Taurus X, Cadillac SRX). In some cases, marketing departments may sometimes blur the line between vehicle body types. It's a car in SUV's clothing, plain and simple. Making it taller is certainly one Marketing strategy, but it serves no functional purpose other than to increase it's rollover potential and worsen handling. But hey- if it helps it sell better (or provide the illusion of an "active, outdoorsy lifestyle", as the article says) it's all good, no?

As I said, you can easily prevent deep discharge of NiMH batteries with a simple undervoltage prevention circuitry. Even my dive light has this. This is not rocket science. But, why constrain the discussion to SLA or NiMH? Several companies have already demonstrated plug-in Prius hybrids using Li Ion batteries that offer much more energy density than NiMH. Your whole argument of poor battery life, in my opinion, is dated thinking. This is simply not an issue today if managed properly. I agree that an all electric car is not a slam dunk. But neither was the Prius when it was introduced. In many parts of the country you still won't see a Prius anywhere. This is why the EV-1 was first introduced in California, and it did reasonably well there. Keep in mind that this was years before the Prius was out, gas was under $2 and there was no real public awareness of global warming yet. In today's environment, I'd bet that an all electric car would be a slam dunk in California, and reasonably successful throughout the countrly. Height- this is sort of a funny argument because it's a self-fullfilling prophecy. If everyone wants to sit higher than everyone else, where do YOU draw the line? The RX isn't taller than the MDX, Tahoe or any other SUV, so your wife can't really see over anyone. Does it then matter if she's at the same level or slighly lower? Not really. If your argument is safety, I'd counter that a non-tinted rear window that allows looking through the car in front of you and seeing the next car's brake lights would be far bigger safety advance that being in a slightly taller car. But then, we both know that wanting to be in a taller car has nothing to do with safety. BTW- Lexus has already produced a "crossover" SUV. it's called the RX. It's built on a unibody platform, has no offroad capability, is designed to handle and feel like a car... that's a crossover. Making it taller doesn't make it more of an SUV, and making it lower won't make it any less of an SUV.

Someone else asked the same question here: http://us.lexusownersclub.com/forums/index...showtopic=43265 From what I gather, it's not possible to convert from miles to kms.