wwest

The A/C system shuts the compressor down if the engine coolant threatens to go over temperature. "Threatens", mind you, not actually over temperature. In many cases removing the heat load from the condensor results inteh coolant moving back down fromm the "RED" zone and the A/C restarts. If the compressor isn't cycling, cycled, on when the system begins blowing warm air then check the radiator cooling fans.

Hmmmm Kid, dont know but it sure smacks of a shudder in the tranny or convertor. Changed the fluid lately? Also sounds to me as if a downshift clutch is not seating at first and you're feeling the resulting shudder. Model year and mileage would always be of help when you ask questions of this type.

When I removed the alternator from my 92 LS due to failure it turned out that the PS leak had absolutely nothing to do with the failure. And the slip ring brushes had LOTS of life left, it was the slip rings themselves that were worn down to the steel metal shaft. Slip ring material too soft.

I pretty sure the RX 300 has Toyota Long life red which is good for 30,000 per the manual. My 2000 and 2001 both definetly had this. Toyota now has ultra long life pink which is good for 100K. If I partially fill a bottle with water, heat/cool cycle it daily for a 100 years is it still water? What components do they put in anti-freeze or coolant that "wears out" or changes chemical composition with long term use? Don't know, don't care. Maybe it's not a chemical wearing out but some other reason the change is required. I am just quoting what Lexus, Toyota and other companies claim. I stopped using the Toyota stuff when it got up around $20 a gallon. I get Prestone from Walmart for about $6/gallon so a coolant change is fairly inexpensive insurance. But along with a coolant drain and fill comes the possibility of a vapor lock/"air pocket" being left somewhere in the hoses or engine and not long after your engine is TOAST...!

I pretty sure the RX 300 has Toyota Long life red which is good for 30,000 per the manual. My 2000 and 2001 both definetly had this. Toyota now has ultra long life pink which is good for 100K. If I partially fill a bottle with water, heat/cool cycle it daily for a 100 years is it still water? What components do they put in anti-freeze or coolant that "wears out" or changes chemical composition with long term use?

Hi there, I've successful convert many R-12 system to R-134 with no problem. Many folks giving it a bad rep because they wouldn't take the time to do it right or lack of knowledge how the a/c works. This vehicle actually designed for R12 so it will work much better with R-12 but where can we find R-12? The gray market? We have seen 104 degree here in the Dallas, TX area the past week. I've convert a couple of them last week, air blows 28 degree out of the vents in 104 degree temp. Here are some tips: - Flush the system Flush the system, actually..?? Or do you really mean pump it down to a HARD vacuum..? - Replace all the 0-rings and lube them up with oil Why...?? My seals have worked for 150,000 miles... And with what oil...?? - Use the right oil for your a/c system Wouldn't the "right" oil for the system mean being compatible with the original R-12..?? - Replace the drier once the system is open up First pump it down to a HARD vacuum, undoubtedly removing ALL the H2O, and NOW remove the drier..? Why? - Recharge the proper amount of oil Doesn't the commercially packaged for retail R-134 come with the oil mixed in...?? - Recharge the proper of R-134(usually 10-15 less than your R-12 system) Or simply recharge to the level that results in the proper low side pressure, ~40 lbs, as directed in the DIY kit..! - Last but not least converting the system isn't cheap. Bring it to someone has the knowledge. Pay for the reapair Once not Twice!!! $50 for the DIY kit including 32 oz of R-134, ~$100 for a reputable A/C specialty shop to do it. Key words = REPUTABLE & A/C SPECIALTY SHOP...! JP Importz

So let me see if I have this straight.... The lamp failure module is supposed to warn the driver if a bulb fails but if the module fails then no lights or warning? Isnt that a bit of an ironic (or moronic) design? Yes, this is rather strange. Inside the brake sensor module there is three nichrome wire/strip sensors used to sense the level of current flowing to the lamps. Those are fairly serious sized, probably large enough to carry 10 amps each without "blowing" so it seems strnage that the sensor module could have failed. I wanted to use LED lamps, 10% of the current flow of the OEM lamps, so I had to change out the nichrome sensors for 0.5 ohm resistors.

While the engine is running unplug the MAF/IAT module sensor, the engien will die, plug the sensor back in, restart the engine. For the next few drive cycles you will have a CEL and ABS/TC/VSC/etc, off indication.

:chairshot:

"The only problem you'll have is stopping; but it's like that with any car." Well, no.....NOT! I can't quote Ford's new US patent directly but it quite succinctly addresses two of the problems, safety issues, with FWD and/or front torque biased AWD....F/AWD. The patented technique apparently applies to the Ford Escape hydrid and the Mercury Mariner hybrid vehicles, both available in FWD only or (automatic) PART-TIME AWD. The first technique involves significantly reducing the level of regenerative braking to be used, applied, by the hybrid control system should the OAT be nearing, at, or below freezing. The second technique involves disabling the regenerative braking aspect the INSTANT ABS activates during actual braking. As almost any experienced 4X4, PART-TIME 4 wheel drive owner will tell you, unless you have a clutch DO NOT operate the vehicle in part time mode on a slippery roadbed surface except to get unstuck, initially get up and going, etc. The problem with a FWD or F/AWD is the same, if not worse. On a slick roadbed when a driver in a 4X4 lifts the throttle for slowing or coastdown 50% of the resulting engine compression braking will be applied to the front wheels, oftentimes resulting in serious level of understearing or even entering an uncontrolable skid. On a FWD or F/AWD ALL, or a major portion thereof, of the engine compression braking will be applied at the front. In about the mid-ninties insurance company statistics began to indicate that ABS equipped vehicles were less safe that their non-ABS equipped counterparts. Apparently the "tilting" factor was attributed to slightly more single vehicle "run off the road"(***) accidents. I think it was at about the same time that the AAA began a campaign to advise FWD and F/AWD owners/drivers how to avoid one of the more serious hazards of FWD or F/AWD on adverse roadbed conditions. Basically they said that if you have an automatic trnasaxle you should practice shifting the transaxle into neutral, QUICKLY shifting the transaxle into neutral. The idea was to prepare you for the day when a lift-throttle coastdown event resulted in enough engine compression braking to cause a loss of directional control on a slippery roadbed surface. Good thing that automatic transaxles often don't provide enough engine/driveline coupling in coastdown mode to make the vehicle TRULY unsafe. *** _____________________________________________ Hmmmm.... I often wonder if this aspect of the ABS safety statistics didn't have more to do with the increasing prevalence of FWD and F/AWD vehicles at/during this period of time. We all know. I hope, that FWD and F/AWD are more prone to understearing (single vehicle "run off the road") than their RWD and R/AWD brotheren. So, did the increase in use of ABS so well coinside with the rising use of FWD and F/AWD that it was really not ABS so much as ABS AND FWD-F/AWD that was the causative factor tilting ABS into the "unsafe" column? close_____________________________________________ And it was about this time, seemingly, that someone gave the automotive industry a "heads up" and they began trying to find ways to alleviate even more of the engine/driveline coupling on their FWD and F/AWD products during coastdown events. And don't forget, let the wording of the US patent granted to Ford recently, serve as a reminder that engine compression braking on a FWD or F/AWD vehicle can interfere with the functionality of the anti-lock braking system unless you are quick to shift the transaxle into neutral when the need arises. This effort, starting in '98 and continuing to this very day, has resulted in a PR nightmare for Toyota and Lexus. So if you live south of the "snowline", say AZ, and NEVER go into the mountains during the winter, FWD and/or F/AWD will undoubtedly serve you well. Otherwise I would advise a good life insurance policy and a Will that appoints guardianship for your offspring.

"Not in the snow it doesn't." Well, in freshly fallen unpacked snow I find it simply doesn't matter, my summer tires provide just as good service as, seemingly, any of the wintertime "specialty" tires. But on packed snow and/or ice my summer times will have better traction than any of the specialty tires.

The RX, all models and years, is more of a FWD vehicle than an AWD. They should really be referred to as F/AWD, front torque biased AWD. It is my understanding that as of the '08 model year the RX is getting a sequential shutoff mode/procedure for the TC, Traction Control, and VSC, Vehicle Stability Control. The TC must first be disabled and then having done that it becomes possible to also disable VSC. My 2001 AWD RX300, like the RX350, has a VC, Viscous Clutch/coupling, mounted, effectively, across the two output shafts of the center diff'l. Absent the VC and its ability to "tighten" the coupling between the center diff'l you really only have FWD for "handling" adverse roadbed conditions. The TC in my 2001 is so quick to actiavte and dethrottle the engine in my it makes my VC utterly useless. Maybe that's why it was left off for the entire RX330 production run. I remain curious as to how the TC firmware was revised, assuming it was, to allow the VC to be operational in the RX350. In any case were I you I would first consider a R/AWD SUV, like the BMW X3 that has a definite rear biased to its AWD mode. Or even one of the Honda/Acura SH-AWD equipped vehicles with the ability to dynamically allocate more engine torque to the rear vs the front. And they seem to that in exactly the correct circumstances, the very circumstances in which any F/AWD such as the RX will be patently UNSAFE. My 2001 AWD RX300 has 1.5" wheel spacers all around, 17X8 wheels, +1" tires. More rubber on the ground = improved traction and braking, wider stance = more stability, less propensity for rollover, etc. The tires are nice, quiet, and comfortably riding summer only Bridgestone Turanzas. If road conditions warrant better traction then I use tire chains at the rear FIRST, and then add the front chains if needed.

A friend suggested that I might have a leak within the ATF cooling section of the radiator and I checked the transaxle ATF level but it seems fine. Mystified is the operative term.

As I said, I'm pretty sure no one but me has had access. The RX has only been at Lexus once since I bought it new and that one time was because the ABS seemed to be not working. What is it about anti-freeze that makes you think, believe, it only has a half-life of 5 years? I didn't change out the factory anti-freeze in my 92 LS400, now at 170,000 miles, until a few years ago, 3 at the most, and only then because it looked a bit murky. Freeze point, specific gravity, and Ph were all still within reasonable range.

I have a 2004 RX. I put my Thule Mountaineer box up top using Thule crossbars. To do so and still have the rear tailgate open without hitting the box, I had to drill new holes in the box so the box can be mounted forward. so that I would feel comfortable about doing this, I bought the Thule cross bars because they can be mounted further forward than the factory cross bars. I didn't want the baseball cap effect where the front of the box hangs way over the windshield without having a mounting point as far foward as possible. I loaded the box up and drove several hundred miles without incident. It's a few extra buck and some time moving the mounting hardware, but well worth the piece of mind. Oh, and Subarus have the problem too. Whenever the rear of the car is rounded like the RX and others, with the hinge well into the roof, this is the result. Enjoy. Adam "...drove several hundred miles without incident...." Has it occurred to anyone else that the factory 75lb load rating might have more to do with keeping this SUV's propensity for rollover within reason in a severe maneuver rather than with actual roof and/or roof rack loading capability??

My wife complained yesterday that she thought she could smell anti-freeze in our 2001 AWD RX300. So when we got home I checked the coolant level in the expansion tank/reservoir. It was a tad above the "hot" full mark but the interesting thing was that there was moisture visible around the reservoir fill cap, just a little, but enough to be a bit worrisome. Additionally there was a "crusty" surround on the top of the reservoir all the way around the fill cap but at a distance of 1" or so. IMMHO the "crust" buildup is obviously an indication of a (recent) "history" of coolant overflow Just went out this morning to check after the engine has cooled all night and the coolant level in the reservoir is still above the "hot" fill mark... Took the radiator cap off and the coolant level is right at the top in there too. I have NEVER had/seen any indication of the engine overheating and insofar as I know the coolant system has not been "opened" since leaving the factory in ~2000. What gives...? Anyone...?

Well, hey, in for a penny, in for a pound... so why not go for the gold coin.... The idea behind most of these performance "chips" is to fool the engine ECU into "thinking" the intake airflow "mass" is more dense, ENRICH for more HP, than in reality. Or in the alternative, less dense, LEAN for improved FE. The most common method is to use an inexpensive, ~4 cent, 1/4 watt resistor in parallel or series, rich vs lean, with the IAT sensor. If the actual intake air temperature is say, 75F, and you want a few extra HP then the theory is if you make the ECU "think" the intake air temperature is 60F it will enrich the EFI fuel flow to accomodate, compensate for, the lower temperature, higher density, intake airflow. The problem is that engine ECUs haven't been that DUMB for many years now. Nowadays you could even think of them as being smarter, OUT-SMARTING, the purveyors of these "chips". During engine idle and/or at a relatively constant speed, light torque, cruising, the ECU relies EXCLUSIVELY in the "upstream" oxygen sensor for controlling the A/F mixture ratio. And all the while its doing "that" its also adjusting the calibration parameters for the MAF/IAT module. It's only when you ask the engine to produce a higher torque level, acceleration, uphill, pulling an extra heavy load, etc, when the engine MUST have an enriched mixture, that the system switches over to the MAF/IAT module signals in order to run an enriched A/F mixture, say 12:1 or even more, vs the standard ~14:1 demanded by the oxygen sensor. If the purveyors really wanted these 'chips" to work all they need do is remove them from the circuit during the times the oxygen sensor signal is being used to control the mixture and then switch them into the circuit, say, any time the O/D lockup clutch is not engaged AND the TPS indicates an above idle throttle position.

Yeah, and get my head chopped off...! Wrong culture, I'm not a "keep my head down" type of person.

Arcing inside the microwave's "cavity" or waveguide will be reflected back into the magnetron as a short in its output path, too much of that and you'll need a new one. Sort of like shorting the wires together going to one of your ML speakers, no instantaneous failure, but..... Modern day magnetrons are not as subject to this, are more robust, compared to the old Raytheon QK-707 magnetron "tube" that this "RADAR RANGE" market started with. With the old airborne RADAR the waveguides were often pressurized to prevent arcing within the waveguide itself. Sorry, you opened the door so I couldn't resist showing off with a bit of absolutely USELESS info gained from my sixties time in the USAF. Now ask me about the OX-4...

More likely the series thermistor (heat sensitive resistor) used to protect the motor if someone "leans" on the button after the end of trvael is reached. Sill inside the door, but....

Unplug the electrical connection, connector, first, then the screw will not interfere with turning the bulb socket.

Well, "mechanically" one could convert the engine to the Atkinson Cycle by modifying the intake cam to delay the closing, or opening, of the intake valves like is done in the Prius engine. FE gain would be as much as 30%. Shortcoming is loss of HP/torque due to the resulting 3.5L engine derating and non-operability of the catalyst since due to increased engine fuel burn efficiency it can no longer be heated to the 800F level required. But. You could then mill the heads to get the compression ratio up to ~13:1 and thereby regain the HP/torque. The delayed intake valve closing keeps the "charge" down to 70% so the effective intake/compression cycle ratio is still ~10:1, and thereby regain the HP/torque values due to the power stroke/cycle still remaing at 13:1. Enough HEAT in the exhaust for the catalyst....? Remains to be seen. The Atkinson cycle works well, assuming late intake valve closing, on the Prius 4 cylinder because there is always an opposite cyclinder beginning an intake stroke just as a specific cylinder is "exhausting" a portion of its A/F mixture charge BACK into the intake manifold. An 8 cyclinder would likely work well for the same reasons. But what might the intake manifold "flow" be like for a 6 cyclinder engine? I have always assumed the RXh did not get the Atkinson engine technique because the Prius' unique catalyst arrangement could not be scaled up to the level needed for a 3.5L engine. But was it because of the 6 cylinder engine instead...?

I got 60,000 miles with Michelin Energy's and would recommend them anytime. My Turanzas are currently just a tad beyond 65,000 miles and will most definitely need replacing before the snow flies. Oops.

I got 60,000 miles with Michelin Energy's and would recommend them anytime. My Turanzas are currently just a tad beyond 65,000 miles and will most definitely need replacing before the snow flies.

Yes. Build yourself an "and" gate to drive a relay. If both front windows start opening simultaneously then energize the relay. Use two N.O. contact sets of the relay to energize the window motors in the "down" polarity. Or you could just use two small 12 VDC relays, N.O. contacts in series wherein both must be energized in order to have "down" power to the rear motors.