jkatsoudas

The first generation of EV-1's did use sealed lead-acid (SLA) batteries, but the 2nd generation used NiMH batteries made by Ovonic. In fact, GM liked the technology so much that they purchased Ovonic (and subequently sold it when they killed the EV-1). Battery longevity, as you point out, is a problem with NiMH if regularly fully discharged but, ironically, not with SLA. Even NiMH doesn't need battery replacement every 3 years, as you say, if a simple battery undervoltage circuitry is employed to prevent discharge below a certain point. This is common in any NiMH pack today. The range of the EV-1 (~120 mi) was often pointed to as a big problem when, in fact, most peoples' daily commute was well short of that. The reason that the public is not ready for an all-electric car is because people think they need 300+ mile range when, in fact, 100 miles easily accomodates 90% of the population's daily driving. The big upside was that you never had to go to the gas station- just plug the car in and let it charge overnight. I'll grant you that it's a selling feature, but a safety feature? No way. You could take 2 inches off the RX and it would still sit taller than any sedan, and be FAR less prone to rollover, to boot. Re, the GS450h, (hehehe) no thanks- I like a car that I could actually fit a suitcase in the trunk of. THAT may be the most ill-conceived hybrid I've ever seen in my life. (says Lexus engineer) "where will we put all these pesky batteries" (says Lexus engineering manager) just stuff 'em all in the trunk, nobody will notice". Even the dealer told me to walk away from the GS450h. They couldn't, with a straight face, recommend one to anyone as a practical sedan.

You assume wrong. That was one of the big lies propagated by the oil industry to kill the electric car. Even if all electricity required to charge electric cars came from coal power, it would still be cleaner than running comparable cars on gasoline. Even the Sierra Club has said so. I'm sooooooo with you on that. Don't worry, the US will finally figure out what a travesty ethanol is when demand for feed corn, and price of feed corn, goes through the roof and all food products reliant on feed corn (dairy, pork, beef) double or triple. Think $4/gal gas is bad? Wait for $8/gal milk. Agreed. But I do think that same car could get 60 mpg. Why does it need a V6 ICE? Why not a turbo 3 or 4 cylinder engine? With the CVT, the engine would always be in it's sweet spot RPM so you'd have no turbo lag. Why do all 6 cylinders need to be "on" all the time? GM developed technology a decade ago that could turn off 2 or 4 cylinders in a V8 when that power wasn't needed. Why, for God's sake, do we need enough fender clearance to hide 10 small children on a car that's not meant for off-highway use? If that RX was lowered 2 inches and given a better front bumper treatment it could be waaaaay more aerodynamic (and therefore more fuel efficient).

If your quote read "Toyota is a pioneer because they conquered the details and successfully delivered what no other company would at the time" I would agree with it 100%. GM had a 100% electric car in production. Do you really think that a hybrid would have been that big a stretch for them? They already had the batteries worked out, and this was the biggest technical challenge. GM dropped the hybrid, not because they didn't have the technical expertise, but because big oil killed it and because they were afraid that if they pushed clean cars too much there would be a big backlash against their bread-and-butter gas SUV's like their recently acquired (at the time) Hummer line. I commend Toyota for what they did, but the main driver of their success was political, not technical.

Not to pile on here, but I watched the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. It's a pretty sad commentary on GM, the state of California, and big oil, but one interesting fact was that when California first enacted the zero emmissions legislation in the late 90's GM began a huge hybrid program (which they sadly dropped as soon as the legislation was killed). Toyota and Honda, out of fear of being left in the dust on hybrid technology, then began their own programs as a response to GM's investment. Hmmmm, not so clear who's the innovator and who's playing catchup now, is it?

Are you just going to keep asking the same question until you get an answer you like? You've already been given the correct answer multiple times. Yes, I've done it, and yes it works.

As others stated in your other thread, the claim that the battery is recharged at 4-5 amps makes no sense if it can be recharged in one hour. Also, in "Ready" mode, the starter battery is connected to the high voltage batteries. So, as long as your amp trigger is connected to a switched source and can't stay on when the car is not in "ready" mode, running it off the starter battery is still the best method.

You can download all the schematics you need from here: https://techinfo.toyota.com You'll need to purchase a subscription to access the information, but it's well worth it for the price of a one-day subscription.

Why can't you go off the starter battery? That's how it should be done.

Not sure who you're referring to as "constipated, lazy, companies". If you're talking about the big 3 US auto makers... the same ones that lobbied to change the MPG calculations... the same ones that think that ethanol powered vehicles are the wave of the future (please don't get me started on what a joke ethanol is)... then I agree with you. However, in the context of this thread I really don't think you can include MBZ or BMW in that company. BMW is at the forefront of hydrogen fuel cell development. MBZ has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of safety innovation and clean diesel. Just because they didn't jump on the hybrid bandwagon on day 1 doesn't mean they're not innovators in other areas. Besides, I believe that gas/electric hybrids are merely an interim technology solution anyway. Even if hybrids are the long-term wave of the future, to use your analogies, right now we're in turn 1 of lap 1, or about 3 steps into the marathon. Toyota definitely doesn't have an insurmountible lead in this market.

Coach is fine for domestic, business-class for international. She's actually less sore after a flight to Europe than a 4 hour drive to Tahoe in the RX. Don't get me wrong- I think Toyota/Lexus does a lot right. As I've stated in prior posts, I have a lot of respect for they've done in hybrid development. I also think their nav system is light years ahead of MBZ's and better than most others. The main reason the RX400h has been selling so well (and why I bought one) is that if you're in the market for a luxury hybrid SUV, well, it's the only game in town... today. Agreed- the I-Drive sucks! My wife initially had her heart set on a BMW 5 series. After playing with the I-drive for about 5 minutes at the dealership, we told the sales person that it was a deal breaker and that we'd never buy a BMW that had I-drive and that he'd better convey that to corporate. The types of issues I'm talking about are intrinsic to Toyota/Lexus design philosophy. Lexus vehicles aren't going to suddenly start feeling like German cars just because some people say they prefer the feel of German cars- nor should they since, as you say, they sell quite a number of them as they are today.

She already sees a chiro for her back, but that does not excuse the poor seat quality nor the fact that her MBZ seats cause her no discomfort at all. Also, from a demographic standpoint, your argument doesn't make sense, as statistics show an inverse relationship between affluence and obesity. That notwithstanding, you have hit on the key issue that is increasingly annoying me about Toyota/Lexus- they design for the lowest common denominator. If they think a 300 lb person might want a Lexus, they'll design the car to accomodate a 300 lb person at the expense of everyone else. If they think some 80 year old that hasn't made the leap to CD's yet will refuse to buy a Lexus if it doesn't have a tape player, they'll leave the tape player there and waste tons of dash space. If they think some idiot will kill themselves trying to dial the phone of plug in a destination while driving, they'll lock out all those features out of fear of a billion dollar lawsuit. Mercedes, apparently, has no problem selling cars to people that like supportive seats and are intelligent enough to dial a phone while driving without killing themselves. The other day I ran low on washer fluid. This, apparently, is a crisis in Lexus' mind. I now have this huge red triangle on my dash and the LCD display now says "LOW WASHER FLUID" and doesn't permit any of the other displays for more than a second or two. In the year that I've owned this car I've grown thoroughly tired of being treated like an idiot by Lexus.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. The rear door drivers are what Lexus calls "mid-bass" and it appears that the bass frequencies have been rolled off on these. I'd agree that there's a noticeable difference between the ML and std sound package, but I'm definitely not impressed with the ML in the RX400h- Definitely not a WOW experience. Bass is very thin (no built-in subwoofer in a sound system this expensive is criminal), and the imaging sounds far too massaged and contrived. ML does too much electronic processing "fanciness" that detracts from a realistic sound. in my opinion.

I too have to chuckle when someone is willing to compromise on choices that impact their day to day lives out of fear of something that may or may not ever happen. Sure, having to take your car to the shop is a drag. Having front seats that are so uncomfortable that we can't take the RX on road trips because my wife's back gets too sore is a much bigger drag.

I should hope that all is well in just "over a year" of ownership. Fact is, that according to Consumer Reports, Mercedes has the worst reliabilty history of all the German car manufacturers. Take a look at any of the Mercedes forums and you will not be inclined to buy one, afterward. I know many people who have had a Mercedes and are now driving Infiniti and Lexus vehicles. The story is always the same - very poor reliability, especially after the warranty has expired. Lexus vehicles are not flawless, but they are lightyears ahread of MB when it comes to reliability. Lexus chose "soft and sterile" because that's what more buyers prefer. Look at sales figures in the US for Lexus SUVs vs Mercedes SUVs. I live in a very large city/county and I see 30 times the number of RXs compared to MLs. Even when compared to the X5 BMW, Lexus easily wins the sales war. Obviously, Lexus has made the right decision when it opted for smooth and silky ride characteristics. I can't argue with anything that you've said. There's no denying Lexus/Toyota reliability record, and it's also clear that Lexus has made decisions on ride/comfort to cater to it's target audience with great success. But, at the end of the day a car purchase is a personal decision and a choice among trade-offs. After having driven an RX now for some time, I personally don't care for it's ride/handling characteristics, and I'd be happy to trade some reliability for something that gives me more pleasure to drive day in and day out, especially when I can largely negate any reliability concerns with an extended B to B warranty. I personally don't plan to keep a car more than 7 years or 100,000 miles anyway, so out of (extended) warranty reliability is a non-factor to me. What I do know is that MB dealership support is light years ahead of Lexus dealership support, at least for the two dealerships that we go to for regular service, and that's at least as big a factor in my mind when taking reliability into consideration in car purchasing decisions.

One additional thought on this point- you could argue that MBZ (and pretty much everyone else in the auto industry) played the safe bet. Toyota invested millions in a hybrid technology at a time when adoption by the buying public was far from guaranteed. They also footed the bill for this by themselves (they've since licensed the Gen2 technology to Ford to try to recoup some of their R&D investment). In the meantime, Mercedes has sat back and watched to see if this technology will be adopted. Once there is enough traction in the marketplace, they partner with GM and BMW to develop their own hybrid drive (sharing the R&D cost 3 ways), and they're only a few years behind Toyota in coming to market with their own product. Hybrids have barely made any inroads yet in most of the world, so in reality MBZ/BMW/GM have lost very little marketshare in the hybrid market as a result of the wait. That doesn't sound like shock to me, it sounds like good product development strategy. Don't get me wrong- I commend Toyota for being the risk-taker. Without them, nobody else would be pursuing hybrid technology. And I did, after all, vote with my wallet and bought an RX I do think though, that as more hybrids, especially lxury hybrids, come to market and the RX isn't the only game in town, you'll start to see some interesting things. I don't think 25-30 mpg even scratches the surface of what hybrids can do (even hybrid SUV's), and I do think that there were corners cut on the RX400h in the interest of keeping the price close to the RX350 that you wouldn't normally see on a Lexus. For example, I would have gladly spent a little more for a better sound system on par with that in any other Lexus.

1) There are a lot of cars and trucks priced similarly to the RX. I'm still not sure, even in the absence of the ML450 that a comparison to the ML350 was valid- especially since your only comment on the specs was "I guess Mercedes fans will have to wait for the NEXT redesign before they can cut back on fuel costs!" Well, of course the ML350 will have worse fuel economy than the RX since it's not a hybrid. If you compare the ML350 to any other non-hybrid midsize SUV it still does OK in fuel economy. 2) Fair enough 3) In my sample size of 1, yes I do. My wife has had an MBZ E350 Sport for over a year (a bit longer than I've had my RX400h) and in that time we've each had exactly 0 reliability problems. More importantly, we each purchased the 7 year 100,000 mi extended warranties so any issues either of us have are covered, so reliability isn't that big of a concern in my book. After having driven both cars for over a year and having a better sense for German luxury car feel vs Japanese luxury car feel, I'd gladly accept MBZ ride, handling, and cockpit accompanied with MBZ reliability. The RX just feels too soft and sterile all around for me.

A couple of thoughts: - First, you do realize you just rescucitated a 2 year old thread :-) - Second (to everyone on this thread) it's a bit ridiculous to compare the RX400h to the ML350. If you want a real comparison, it would be to this: http://jalopnik.com/cars/frankfurt-auto-sh...cial-297374.php I'll definitely be test-driving that truck when it comes out. I'm sick of the terrible seats, and sloppy handling of the RX.

I think it's just your Canadian accent. Mine works fine. B) What are you like, talking about, like, you know, it has nothing to do with my like mastery of like the english language you know. And more to do with like the poor like design of the system you know. The Acura system, rules. Try one out, you'll like, see, you know. Cheers, MadloR dontcha know it, eh.

I think it's just your Canadian accent. Mine works fine. B)

Guess I need to clarify my post. I appreciate good low end in my sound system, in the car or at home (I have a very nice subwoofer in my family room). "Most" people who install serious subwoofers in their cars are teenagers who blast them to levels that create serious noise pollution, annoy drivers around them, and permanently damage their hearing. I am not ignorant regarding sound systems. KMA!!! Need a definition for that? I still have no idea what anything you've said has to do with anything in this thread. Please stop digging that hole you're in.

According to the Lexus USA website, the curb weight difference is: RX400h AWD (lb/kg): 4,365/1,980 RX350 AWD (lb/kg): 4,090/1,855 My guess is that the difference of 275 lb is significant enough to affect the predicted ride height and the handling of the springs. Imagine a 275 lb person (or two 140 lb people) sitting in your back seat. This definintely affects both ride height and handling of the car.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.

I've had it for a year now. I can definitely feel the difference between my seats and my wife's MBZ, but it doesn't bother me that much in my daily commute. She has some back problems, though, and sitting in the RX for long periods (out of town trips) leaves her sore for at least a week afterwards. No amount of time will correct that. I have found a local upholstery shop that does restorations, insurance work on euro (MBZ. BMW) and Japanese cars and custom modifications (installation of custom heating/cooling systems, etc). They claim to have inventory of leather that matches all major brands, so I may contact them to see if it's possible (read- affordable) to refit the seats with some firmer foam, more pronounced lumbar support, and perhaps some additional bolstering.

I think what you're looking for is this: http://www.coastaletech.com/LOCKPICK_MAIN.htm I'd call them to confirm that it's compatible with the Euro version of your vehicle. Don't bother e-mailing them- they never reply to e-mail.

Valid points- thanks. Losing the airbags would not be something I'd be open to. Going with seats out of an IS, for example, would retain correct seat controls, airbags, and hopefully wiring, and potentially make integration a bit easier, but the airbags may still not be the correct shape/volume for the car. Doesn't sound like there are a lot of options out there. Perhaps having an upholstery shop replace the foam in the seat pans with firmer foam? These things are just to mushy and lacking in support, and the wife is likely to boycott the use of the RX on future road trips without a solution.