wwest

I have very little doubt that the RXh can and will yeild better adverse roadbed performance than the standard RX, even the RX350. But then that's not especially a good benchmark for comparison. Before I bought an RXh I would want to determine if the US patent recently granted to FMC, Ford Motor Company, is fully licensed and implemented. The patent appears to apply to the Ford Escape and Mariner hybrids. The first patented technique results in a significant reduction in the level of regenerative braking available if the OAT is near or below freezing. The second technique disables ALL regenerative braing the very instant ABS activates during actual brake application. Both of these, obviously, are designed to reduce the HAZARDS of FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicles in wintertime adverse, slippery, roadbed conditions. Just as you would/should NEVER downshift a FWD vehicle to obtain engine compression braking on a known low traction condition Ford is in the lead (Ford..???) working to alleviate the same potential problem for regenerative braking on hybrids. And I would recommend the Acura RDX or the BMW X3 instead of the standard RX should you go that direction.

With the interior dome/map lighting in my 2001 AWD RX300 I sort of killed two birds with one stone. I never cared for the front "passenger side map light" arrangement to begin, too much light "spillage" to the driver's eyesight. With the dimness of the other bulbs the entry lighting really only consisted of the dome light just behind the front seats. I purchased a Ford three bulb map/dome light fixture and replaced the entry dome light. With "entry" power all three bulbs illuminate, the center dome and rignt and left map lights directed just forward of each front seat. I rewired the front OEM dome/map so that light also comes on with "entry" and the passenger "map" light switch at that location actually turns the Ford passenger light on. 10 watt halogen bi-pin landscape bulbs in all three positions of the Ford fixture.

How come I don't see an alternator in there...?

Mine is also a 2001, but AWD. While I fully expect the transaxle to fail due to the design flaw prior to reaching ~100k miles it will get no "slack" from me in the meantime. I will however monitor the condition of the ATF diligently and if it again starts looking and smelling burnt it will get a drain and refill, if not two.

You may have an ABS wheel speed sensor that is slightly out of calibration/position. At higher speeds if a wheelspeed sensor signal "drops" out while you're on the brake... Pull the ABS fuse and take a drive..

Then why is the FWD ES300 included in the same TSB? And the FWD RX330? The TSB specifically lists the problem as being an incompatibility between the material of the pad and the finish of the rotors. You just make everything so complicated. If you want to pretend its something as convoluted as that, have at it. My point is... The wording, implementation, of the TSB does not preclude there also being an issue, problem, with the RX AWD models in the manner I described. Yes, the proposed RX AWD rotor problem would not result or lead directly to the TSB being issued, but...

Neither the dealership nor the indy ever came back and said it was only one side or the other. I have no idea how to disable the DBW servomotor, I am not even sure what that would do for me. Just in case someone is unconsciously "resting" their left foot on the brake pedal.

"so I lubed it and was able to move it in and out." YOU moved it forcefully or you cycled the system from hot to cold so the blend door servomotor could move it..? Latter is okay, if the former then you probably disconnected the cable at the blend door servomotor end. Blend door and water flow control are operated in parallel by the same servomotor. You may have even damaged the servomotor so that the motor internals work/move, but with no movement externally to the blend door or HCV cable.

Do you know if, or not, the rotor warpage involved both rotors in all three cases. And if not, which one, left, right, or alternate? A poorly lubricated, gauled, or worn brake caliper guide pin can result in only one brake pad primarily providing the braking (caliper doesn't fully "float") and thereby result in premature rotor warping and/or wheel bearing failure. Otherwise have you at all thought about, considered, the possibility of disabling the DBW throttle opening servomotor unless the brake lights are OFF..?

I almost never turn the rotors when repalcing worn brake pads. Maybe after the third or forth sets of brake pads... I would NEVER recommend draining the brake fluid unless a non-dealer professional recommended same and actually performed the work him/herself. Look under the car, find the e-brake cables, look them over front to back thoroughly, the adjustment point should become obvious.

I agree, it is difficult to understand why Garmin would include such a seemingly market viable option but not provide adequate useage documentation for same. I guess I can sort of understand withholding the details of the D/R installation procedure, legal liability issues and all, but given today's level of backchannel information flow it will probably be only a matter of time before it becomes publically available." For instance I don't think I could become very trusting of the D/R capability absent knowing how, if, the system has been calibrated or somehow automatically "learned" to correctly correlate the number of PPS from the speed sensor vs the actual distance travelled. And were the system not automatically switching back and forth (asumption) between GPS and D/R the embedded (assumption, again) magnetic compass would need not be calibrated. But back and forth switching would undoubtedly require the compass to be calibrated, not only to magnetic north, but "around", for the full circle, of the compass "readings".

Pardon me, but.. What is it about the wording of the TSB that results in your conclusion that in the case of the AWD Rxes the carry over of the previous generation brake rotor/pads did not result in early/premature wear/failure due to a higher level of TC use being required? Why can't both be true?

Sorry, the referenced Wiki statement regarding proper/correct A/F ratio is already perfectly aligned with my own. To quote: "A stoichiometric mixture is the working point that modern engine management systems employing fuel injection systems attempt to achieve in light load cruise situations." Operative term being... LIGHT LOAD CRUISE SITUATIONS. My 2001 C4 would not likely be able to produce its rated 300HP were the mixture left at the stoichiometric ratio as the throttle is opened farther and farther from the otherwise meager light engine loading cruise requirements. At high throttle openings, high engine loading, the "front" oxygen sensor(s) otherwise used to monitor for proper stoichiometric ratio (no unburned oxygen in the exhaust gasses) are ignored. Instead the MAF/IAT sensor outputs are used to control the mixture at a typical 12:1 ratio or beyond. A seond point, somewhat important, is that during light loading operations the MAF/IAT sensors are "calibrated" via the front oxygen sensor output monitoring. If the MAF/IAT signals should for some reason drift from the previous calibration point the ECU simply "learns" the new one. That's why those ebay gadgets that modify the IAT signal output, seemingly to result in a higher mixture ratio and thereby more HP from a given engine design, simply do NOT work. On the other a more sophisticated design, one that only modifies the IAT signal upon/with high throttle openings, might well work. Haven't yet noted that any of those Ebay device vendors want, or even know, to go to that extra effort.

Boy, do I really, REALLY know how to miss-state, miss-represent, my own case, argument. Let's start out using today's more likely scenerio wherein the vehicle engine was designed primarily for the use of premium, 92 octane, fuel. Premium fuel is less subject to predetonation, dieseling, so we can begin by raising the compression ratio above that which would seemingly be required for using a lower grade fuel. Let's also throw in the most ignition advance, statically and dynamically, we possibly can in order to achieve the highest level of HP/Torque possible from each ounce of that EXPENSIVE high octane fuel. Okay so far..? But now we want the owner to have the capability of fueling with 87 octane if the need arises. Can't lower the compression ratio....?? Lower grade fuel, 87 octane, under the high compression ratio of "this" engine would undoubtedly be more subject to predetonation, dieseling. Timing....?? Retarding the timing will do little good if the knock/ping is the result of dieseling, self-preignition of the A/F mixture. Advance the timing...to a certain extent, yes. Pre-ignition due to dieseling often results in an uneven, "ratty", flame-front progression and "tweaking" the timing forward a slight bit might provide a more widespread flamefront and thereby less stress on the engine. Not recommending this as a practice in any way, just thinking out loud. So, advance the timing..?? NOT...!! Sorry, I used a poor example, a really poor example, using my 78 Porsche. So, how do we prevent dieseling of a low grade fuel when used in an engine with a compression ratio tuned/designed for the use of premium? Enrich the mixture.

Okay, if you take a look at the distriburtor mechanical internals in my 78 Porsche 911 you will find both a vacuum advance and centrifical advance via springs and weights. Obviously the ignition timing changes as a function of engine load, loading (vacuum), and engine RPM. I remember that one of my Ford V8's had a second vacuum system source so as to more accurate "map" the ignition timing to actual engine operating conditions. With the 78 if I wish to switch to premium, higher octane, fuel and actually take advantage of same, I would to change the jetting or at least manually change the "static" BTDC ignition timing if not "retune" the entire vacuum and centrifical dynamic ignition advance mechanisms. I think we all know what was most commonly done. Now, "LEAP" forward from 1978 to 2007. You can now control the timing, statically and dynamically, to the Nth degree. But in doing so you would certainly want to keep it advanced to/on the very cusp of best/most advanced timing less actually crossing over to the knock/ping parametric regions. Rule # 1. But with EFI you also have full and complete control of the mixture ratio (insofar as CARB and the EPA have set limits). Given the two choices, as an engineer, keeping rule # 1 in mind, would you !Removed! the timing additionally, even greater retardation level, in order to accommodate the lower octane fuel, or would your attempt to keep HP/Torque roughly equal by increasing the level of fuel to be mixed with air and thereby avoid the knock/ping operating region? No one need answer that.

The second set of instructions is vastly more clear... I've printed it out and will try it out tonite. If I owned an RX400h I would very likely modify the TC electronics(***) so that EVERY time the accelerator pedal is depressed, or farther depressed, TC would "sense" an ever so slight wheelspin/slip on both front wheels and thereby immediately bring the rear drive on line. But I suspect that the RXh may do that anyway in an actual case of need, front wheelspin/slip, say on an icy surface. For a true FWD or front torque biased AWD it is an important matter concerning the safety of the passengers that TC react immediately and instantaneously to front wheelspin/slip by dethrottling the engine and using braking to most quickly moderate the level of torque being applied to the (SLIPPERY) roadbed via the road/tire interface. To do otehrwise would dramatically increase the probability, DANGER, of loss of directional control due to engine torque, TOO MUCH OF. On the other hand were you to be able to IMMEDIATELY and INSTANTLY transfer ALL or the majority of the the engine driving torque to the rear wheels the very instant front wheelslip/spin is detected that would allow you to maintain directional control using the front traction coefficient while still driving the vehicle forward. Sorta like the SH-AWD system. The RXh quite clearly could have the ability to implement such a technique. But does it...? *** "Pre-process" the front ABS wheelspeed sensors' signal so that they indicate a "falsely-rising" wheelspeed, a wheelspeed slightly above present roadspeed, just for a few hundred milliseconds each time increased drive torque is demanded via the gas pedal. Again.. Unlike the "standard" AWD RX, If the AWD RXh's TC firmware is well engineered, designed, there would be no need to disable TC in the "ordinary" circumstances some of us encounter during the winter months. But I believe I have read somewhere recently that the 2008 RX350 has a TC and a VSC disable function. Apparently TC must be disabled first and only then can you proceed to disabling VSC.

"Wiki" is now correct, corrected.

Wow.... Back from the Garmin site, multiple ones actually, and some serious research across the internet. Two points. 1. While giving fairly reasonable explanations/procedures for correctly estabishing the proper electric connections to the vehicle, The SP-7500 owners manual quite clearly states that the D/R capability must be professionally installed. I take that to mean, just as I would logically expect, that beyond actually making the electrical connections some sort of cabibration procedure is required. I had absolutely no luck in finding any publication or document on the internet related to the "professional" installation procedures. The only explanation I can think of for that is that Garmin does not want an end user making an installation attempt so the documentation, procedure, is being with-held from the public somehow. 2. The owners manual does not make it very clear just how and when D/R is to be used. I did find information elsewhere that implies that it doesn't automatically switch to D/R when the GPS signals are lost, but must be manually switched into one mode or the other. Apparently, seemingly, the target market is delivery vans operating in highly congested areas. Areas wherein the vehicle speed sensor, once carefully and correctly calibrated, can be used along with a "compass", by the nav mapping database and software to track and direct vehicle position. I think I'd try an external antenna to increase the probability of attaining a strong and relaible GPS signal long before attempting to use this device's D/R capability. Or even one of the otehr Garmin GPS/Nav devices that seeming have the higher sensitivity GPS reciever capability. $1000.00+...?? Low reciever sensitivity....?

Thanks for the primer on Dead Reckoning with a GPS system. This feature is quite valuable and contributes greatly to Information Assurance coming from the NAV screen. It gives the driver the best possible information on position above and beyond the GPS alone. Comparing the Garmin and the Lexus however is not apples and apples since the Lexus D/R system uses more than just speed to calculate position. It also used steering input. This helps in the case where you are driving in downtown among tall buildings and making turns. The Garmin would have you going in a strait line from your last known position and the distance would be a function of your speed and time elapsed. That said, I've experienced D/R with the Lexus and its steering input and at least for freeway exits it does not work very well. That is probably because the steering inputs are small but can result in large changes in heading. I basically got the Garmin equivalent D/R which had me continuing along the freeway even tho I had made a 45 deg change in heading. It probably works better in downtown city streets where turns are more obvious and speed change can be better correlated with turning inputs to figure out where the car is going. My few times in that situation have never left me unsure of my position and there is a great possibility that I was out of contact with the SAT GPS signal. The Garmin does not rely solely on the speed sensor alone to calculate position. The Garmin also has a internal electronic gyroscope to calculate turn angles I have to confess that I am not entirely sure how the Lexus NAV system works but I suspect that it may also adjust it's directional settings from a gyroscope using the same method as Garmin. From what I know of the Garmin system it gets its (when using D/R) information using a combination of Speed input from the speed sensor and turn information from the electronic gyroscope. So when you are using D/R the GPS system is using a combination of speed input from the speed sensor and changes in direction from the gyroscope. I have been using my Garmin 2610 for a few years and have driven with it from Key West to Springfield Massachusetts, and from LI NY to Dallas and Houston Texas and have never had it not respond to a turn (when it was receiving a signal, the 2610 does not have D/R). It has positioned me off the road but that was because the map was out dated and there was new road construction. I have driven from LI to TX a few times and have never had the problem you described with being plotted off the road. Could it be possible that the GPS was correct and there was new road construction and the new road or exit is now in a slightly different location than the old road? Sorry, an electronic gyroscope would undoubtedly require some sort of a SOLID/RIDID mount and a calibration procedure, something along the lines of driving in a full circle all the while the GPS signal from all three (??) satelites remains continously available. I suspect that what is happening that is misleading you into thinking you have an embedded electronic "gyroscope" (or magnetic/electronic compass, maybe) is that even with brief loss of the positioning signal your Garmin will continue to compute and update your position, map display route, based on previous speed, for at least a few hundred(??) milliseconds. And what is it that makes you think you're loosing all three GPS satelite signals simultaneously? I have traveled the county with a Garmin in our MH and once the signal is, signals are, initially acquired, not an always easy task in the cab of a class "C" MH, I simply don't see any tracking dropouts, certainly never to the level of the mountainous regions here in the NW. Not really trying to argue, but to more fully understand. So, off to the Garmin site for a morning of reading, education. Oh, the Lexus system most definitely has an electronic "gyroscope", but they call it an electronic magnetic compass. That's wherein I derived the information that it must be ridgidly mounted and cablibrated via the method I described. Oh, and "thirdly".... When the Lexus system is in use I almost always have the display turned off. IMMHO the last thing I need in those instances is to be indesisive when coming right up on an intersection and be temped to devert my eyes from the roadbed, driving task, to the display at the last minute to gain additional insight. I feel it is much better, safer, to either miss my turn or simply commit to one even not being sure its correct. In flying that's called having your mind out there about 50 yards ahead of the prop.

Have you yet removed, cleaned and burnished the battery connections and battery posts?? Let us know the results.

1990....multiple failure points...??

No. At least not unless you have a manual transmission and regularly abuse it by lugging the engine.

It sounds like a recharge to me. I am no expert in the a/c field though. Just by experience over the years. If the compressor cycles on and off then the refrigerant level is not so low as to lock out the compressor to prevent damage. And the off cycling means that the high, liquid, side is reaching a high enough pressure level that there should be sufficient cooling. If you move the temperatur esetpoint to max cooling the system will bypass ALL sensors and simply move the reheat/remix servomotor door/vane control to the maximum cooling position, I.E, NONE of the system airflow should be reheated. Another test you might try is running the A/C before the engine coolant gets hot enough for the reheating "path" to be effective. If it cools at first and the warms as the engine coolant heats up then the reheat/remix servomotor is definitely at fault. If the latter case you could go to Home Depot and buy a manual water flow shutoff valve to install in the engine coolant line to the heater core so you at least have cooling throughout the summer and then open the valve when it turns cold enough. You can also make your normally operating A/C drastically more efficient, improveed FE, for cooling via shuting that valve.

If you need to use the vehicle speed sensor for D/R during the short periods of loss of GPS signals then you may be in a LOT more trouble than you think. First of all, GPS will continue to display the computed speed, a computed speed which in all likelihood will be more accurate (not suject to tire inflation level, etc, etc.) than any vehicle speed sensor readout. Makes me begin to wonder how I survived my early days of flying mostly D/R cross-country relying on a compass and an airspeed indicator, and airspeed indicator mostly based on "guesstimated" atmospheric pressure. And if you need D/R while driving through the Holland tunnel then you really are in TROUBLE. The most I have ever encountered as to loss of signal was for a few miles in the mountains here and there in the quite beautiful Pacific NW. But even then unlike flying I had the roadbed to rely on for those few miles instead of having to begin a D/R computation sequence. And by-the-by I specifically said "the Rx's nav system" with regard to routing, not GPS.

"All in all I still believe that the RX330 is a better vehicle than the RX300 is." NOT...!!! The most likely reason or possibility for extraordinary brake wear, especially at the front wheels of the ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE RX330 is the fact that the viscous clutch was eliminated for the entire RX330 product run. That left it ENTIRELY the "responsibility" of TC, Traction Control, for re-allocating, apportioning, engine torque to the rear wheels upon front wheelspin/slip via the use of moderate, modulated, front braking and subsequent (instant?) engine dethrottling. It is probable that the RX300 brake rotors/pads/calipers were carried over, at least to the earlier RX330's, without realizing that they might not, wouldn't, stand up to the EXTRA duty of TC braking resulting from the loss of the viscous clutch capability, for whatever that VC was actually worth. WORTHLESS IMMHO. Since there was no VC it is also highly probable that the TC firmware was "retuned", sensitized, above its operational level in the RX300 to take up some of the slack from the VC loss. They may have even added a "virtual" front LSD capability using TC. Althought I notice that some of the newer Toyota/Lexus FWD and front torque biased AWD vehicles make use of TC to implement a "virtual" front LSD capability have a manual on/off control and with the most appropreate note of caution along with. So if your RX330 (RX350??) does have front LSD capability it is probably almost ("virtually") un-noticeable. "But it remains quite inferior too..." Not just quite inferior too, but NOT even in the same class, NOT NEARLY. The RX series AWD system is only a PRETEND AWD system, used as a "point" of marketing only. The only one you mention that might be classed with the RX series is the Mazda, and that's only because I don't know one way or another personally. But I do KNOW that the JEEP Cherokee belongs in an entirely different, STELLAR, AWD class, as likely does the RDX's SH-AWD system. And the RX300, at least my 2001 (no DBW), didn't come with the RX330's random possibility of 1-2 second engine/transaxle downshift delay/hesitation nor the additional aspect of the Rx350's engine 3-4 upshift surging/flare along with. On the other hand I do expect to see premature transaxle failure in my 2001 AWD RX300 within the first 80-100,000 miles arising from the same base design flaw. But at least that premature failure shouldn't be considered a safety concern. Put the GS350's DFI V6 engine/drivetrain and its AWD system in the 2009 RX series and I'll be first in the market to trade up. Or move the RXh ICE to the rear (smallish boxer "4" with electrically controlled CVT {infinitely variable} driving an SC) with ICE/MG1 rear drive and MG2 front electric drive/regen. But I do wish some of the new c-best options for the RX350 were available on my RX.