wwest

No.

I installed a 50 watt bi-pin landscape halogen in mine, driver's side only. Not on ever long enough for heat to be a problem. LED brightness isn't quite here yet.

Stability, Traction and Sure footedness when things get slippery, Handling in inclement weather, Better performance, and as a means of "having" the added traction when you need it only while saving on wear and tear and better economy for all the "other" times when you do not need it. Cheers, MadloR The question is/was: What is the advantage if bringing the rear motor online in HIGH traction conditions?

Okay yawl, just what is AWD for, worth, if not to keep you up and going on adverse, packed snow, ice, roadbeds? And if that is its purpose in life then who in their right mind would be anything but "gingerly" with that gas pedal in those conditions. So, slippery roadbed, or even suspected slippery roadbed, would any of us be aggressive with that gas pedal? So where, what, is the advantage or bringing the rear motor online in high traction conditions? 0-60 times...??

Didn't I read somewhere that the rear motors aren't used unless fairly aggressive acceleration is called for on startup? Other than with wheelspin/slip, of course.

The rear inflate/deflate solenoids are in the trunk under the mat, check those first.

This is correct. Only electric power goes to the rear wheels, while the fronts can receive either electric or gas. This avoids the mass of a drive shaft going to the rear wheels. For all pracital purposes this is an AWD vehicle. AWD by defintion implies a part-time system as opposed to a 4WD vehicle which has full-time power to all 4 wheels. The power deliverd to the rear wheels is not trivial and makes for better acceleration. The system works flawlessly. I've had occasion to use it in slippery conditions and also under heavy acceleration and the AWD system keeps power going to the gournd under any circumstance without wheel spin. Your statements are correct, overall, but you're tending to confuse things a bit... 4WD/4X4 systems, systems that LOCK the rear driveline to the front (most of THESE are RWD derivatives), are considered PART-TIME since they can only be engaged on low traction surfaces and should NEVER be engaged on a high traction surface. And while these newer AWD systems are often referred to as FULL-TIME if one looks deep enough most are really not. What AWD seems to really mean, especially an AWD on a FWD "base", is that the manufacturer has adopted some method of automatically coupling the second axle into the drive train if/when the primarily driven wheels develop slippage.

WW, In trying to drive to protect this '03 transmission then, can I infer from your last sentence that if I kind of drive more slowly with a more steady throttle rather than rapid jump accelerating that the clutches will seat better with less torque applied by the engine - and maybe last longer? The only suggestion I would be willing to make for the 01/03 series is to check your ATF on a regular basis, say at every oil change, and change it out when it get to looking and smelling burnt. I don't know if any of these models are suffering premature failures but if that ATF isn't changed out... For the 99/00 models a light touch on the gas pedal for an initial acceleration period after a brief period of coastdown would undoubtedly extend the life of those clutches.

I can well see, understand, why a TC, Traction Control, disable capability would or could be desireable. But I fail, completely, to understand why a VSC disable capability is desirerable outside of a REAL sports car at track time.

Well the theory was thet the 99/00 models have the problem and they're the vast majority to fail. I too have a 2000 AWD RX that I've only had a drain and fill at 60 and a flush at 90 and (cross your fingers ansd knock on wood) not even a hint of problem. As we've gone over in laborious and painstaking detail on this forum only a relatively small percentage of 99/00 tranny fail at all but most of those reported here are 99/00 with less than 100k. In fact many have failed even though the owners did some kind of trans fluid replacement so we cant even pinpoint that as the cause. The only thing we DO know is that after 00 we have far fewer reported failures. This whole thread is getting to be a bit crazy...but. There is no indication whatsoever, nor any evidence that suggests, that the condition of the ATF is playing a part in the premature failures of the 99/00 transaxles. The failures, seemingly, is the result of extraordinary wear rates of the clutches frictional surface due to the new shift schedule adopted with inital RX production. For '01/03, on the otherhand, the obvious overheating and burning of the ATF can and will lead to premature transaxle failures in those model years. For the 99/00 model years the downshift immediately following an upshift due to a full lift-throttle event could not be completed prior to the engine beginning to build additional torque for acceleration. Pretty much the same as would happen with a stick shift if you allowed the engine RPM to rise substantially before beginning to release the clutch after each downshift. It is my firm belief that Toyota overcame the problems with the 99/00 RX in the 01/03 models by substantially increasing the displacement of the gear type oil pump. The downshifted clutches would not have enough pressure/flow to quickly and firmly seat. But. The larger displacement ATF oil pump resulted in TOO much pressure/flow at high engine RPMs when no shifting action was required. The result...? ATF being burning and its formulation compromised due to overheating. And we all know the next corrective measure, the '04 and after models have a DBW throttle to protect the drive train by delaying the onset of engine torque until those clutches can be seated.

Being a commissioned salesperson myself and seeing that I consulted with car dealership sales departments for several years, people always try and dream up these elaborate schemes that are going to save them money. What saves you money is a willingness to be fair and a knowledge of what fair value is for what you're buying. Paying cash for a car doesn't stregnthen your position when you're buying from a dealer (a private party or small used lot sure) for one thing the dealership and the salesman makes a profit on financing and leasing. Dealers make more on financed cars than on used cars, and with modern wiring into accounts they get the money almost as quickly. He's potentially saving $11,000 off of a new one though. I agree the 3 owners and such sounds dubious though... ".. a knowledge of what fair value is for what you're buying...." In this instance not even the selling party, the dealer, is likely to know the fair value, wouldn't you agree? "...He's potentially saving $11,000..." EXACTLY...! And "potentially" he's buying a real can of worms. And paying "cash" has nothing to with the suggestion, it's simply a way of quickly determining what, in this quite unique case "fair value" means to the dealer. This car WILL SELL, the question is to whom and for what price.

BS like this isn't necessary. Otherwise the dealer has all the "cards". Remember, you walked into the dealer's showroom.

Clean your throttle body and change the gas filter, also check tranny fluid level. Do not touch or remove any sensors on the throttle body...Happy trails. SOP, Standard Operating Procedure... Operating as designed. Read the TSB issued for your car.

No such currency: http://www.ezinearticles.com/?1000-Dollar-...?&id=432377 ;) Then how about 300 $100 bills. :P I would walk in, find the sales manager, give him a certified check for ~$28,000. If the manager doesn't accept that then start adding $100, one bill at a time from an obviously large stack, telling the manager that you already know, have already decided, when you will stop and if you get to that point before the manager flinches, accepts the current "offer", you will pick up ALL your "marbles" and go home.

Simply unplug the MAF/IAT sensor while the engine is running at idle, the engine will die, reconnect the MAF/IAT module and drive away. You will have CEL, VSC, TC failure indications for the next few drive cycles. VSC & TC are disabled any time there is CEL indication. BUT. I would NEVER advise taking an RX off-road, PERIOD.

First, I think I can say with fair certainty that the transaxle problems with the '99 and maybe the '00 differ from those of the 2001-2003 models, and differ yet again for the 2004 and after Rxes. And absent knowing the population of 99/00 AWD vs FWD it would be hard to be certain that the fact that there are, seemingly, more complaints of premature transaxles for the AWD models is statistically important. Even relying on the ratio of internet posts, AWD vs FWD, premature transaxle failures might be misleading given the relatively small overall "sample". Regarding the sludge issue... According to the letter I got from Lexus the sludging that is addressed via the warranty extension does not relate in any way to the sludging that might result from a lack of scheduled oil/filter changes. Additionally Toyota has admitted to a casting flaw in the engines subject to oil sludging which was corrected during the '01 production run. Back to the transaxle issue.. I'm pretty sure, 95% certain, that the cause of the premature transaxle failures for the '99 models, and the '00 if those are failing, is extraordinary wear of the clutches frictional surfaces. If you haven't noticed already you will soon notice a few shifting oddities of these transaxles. Upon a full lift-throttle event these transaxles will ALWAYS upshift. My thought is that this is done to prevent, alleviate, the hazardeous of engine compression braking on the driven wheels of a FWD vehicle should the roadbed, by absolute happenstance, be somewhat slippery. I would agree that there undoubtedly is a FE advantage from this also. The problem occurs if you happen to wish to quickly accelerate just immediately after the full lift-throttle event. The transaxle will have just begun the upshift sequence, the engine is at now idle and therefore the gear type ATF oil pump is operating at minimum capacity. Now when the transaxle needs to downshift as a result of the new throttle position there is not enough ATF pump pressure/flow to quickly complete the downshift. The engine RPM rises as soon as you re-apply pressure to the gas pedal all the while the transaxle is still not completed the required down shift. Lots of slippage of the not yet full seated downshift clutches. Do this fairly often, HARD acceleration immdiately after a full lift-throttle event, and those clutches cannot possibly last for 100,000 miles. Obviously the increased weight and frictional losses of AWD, towing, cargo, people, would accelerate the failure. It is my firm belief that as of the MY2001 an attempt was made to resolve these failures by using a higher volume/capacity FIXED displacement ATF oil pump. While that change did result in being able to seat the downshift clutches quick enough to at least reduce the rate of failure it resulted in yet another "failure" mode. A fixed displacement pump, of whatever capacity, will always provide the same flow volume per revolution. Total volume only dependent on the rotational rate of the input shaft, the faster the engine turns the more pump volume. Little, or no "work" for that pressure to do at 5000 RPM, bypass it back in to the sump. HEAT...!! The MY2001 ('02, '03?) RXes are subject to ATF overheating and needing to be changed out in as little as 40,000 miles. This for a vehicle in which the owners manual does not indicate ATF service for the life of the vehicle. The transaxle "problem" was finally completely solved in the MY2004 Rxes by using a DBW (e-throttle, e-gas) throttle to delay the onset of engine torque long enough for the clutches to fully and firmly seat. If you like the thill of randomly putting your life at risk then an '04 and later RX will be your ticket. And speaking of later...

There are lots, millions, of positive stories. Insofar as I can tell (reading posts, NO personal experience) the upshift flare only really occurs until the ATF has warmed to operating range. I would walk in to the dealer with 30 $1000 bills and buy the car. If you should start encountering the flare problem IMMHO you can solve it by "widening" the ATF sump pan so the transaxle will have more fluid capacity, some of the dealers seem to be saying an extra 1/2 qt will suffice. The problem is that you cannot simply add that 1/2 qt with having it stirred, frothed and foamed via being exposed to the rotating gearsets once it have warmed, and volume has increasing accordingly. Note that the extra capacity must be accessible via the ATF pump suction pickup, very close to the bottom of the sump pan. You might want to check, Toyota would be rather stupid to have not somehow supplied that extra ATF sump capacity in the "new" transaxle.

Cost, carrier..? Recommendations..?

Yes, absolutely..

Well, technically I said MOST and even though I believe your assesment of the 2001 + trannys to be accurate, there certainly aren't near the number of failures you see in 99/00 years. Additionally, simply sticking to a normal (or near normal 20-30,000) trans OCI should keep someone clear of problems, whereas this wasnt true in the 99/00 versions. Sure the trans wasnt perfect but it was much better and thus made the RX a better vehicle than it had been The context of the question was relating to whether an 01 RX is/was a worthy purchase and IMHO , it is a better choice than a 99/00. '...normal (or near normal 20-30,000) trans OCI..." For those of us with almost 50 years of driving experience with automatic transmissions, "normal" means NEVER. Even as verified in the owners manual of my 2001 AWD RX300. Of course DEALERS have a completely different story, always have, always will. "The 90 weight gear oil in your non-LSD rear diff'l needs to be drained and refilled every..." Right, sure. When Lexus first sent me to the dealer to discuss my dirty and smelly ATF and the dealer told me that the schedule had been revised to every 15,000 miles my response was "yeah, right, and pigs can fly." But then Lexus corporate verified what the dealer had told me. As a small sample, by no means intended to be all inclusive, I drove two Ford V8/auto(C6) Country Squire station wagons for well over 200,000 miles and it never occurred to me to service the ATF, except at the expected 125-150,00)- mile DIY preventative overhauls.

I could understand this, but not on a car that has a few thousand miles. Seals/o-rings are made out of materials that last a long, long time! :) Okay, many of the seals in your transaxle are of the metal ring type about the same as the piston rings. Back in 92 Lexus somehow found themselves with some really soft copper with which to fabricate the slip ring commutation connections for the alternators. At ~100,000 miles they were worn down to the alternator shaft while the slip ring brushes themselves had lots of wear left. So, Toyota has found themselves some metal hydraulic fluid sealing rings with the metal dis-simuliar enough from the drum clutch metal that the expansion rate differs significantly. When new, not worn in the least, everything is find. But with a little wear and the fact that the expansion rate with heat isn't as great as the component being sealed there is too much leakage duirng the warm up period. For every question there is an answer, or at least an educated guess. Yes, yes, I know, piston rings seat better after the initial break in period. But that still wouldn't account for differing metal's expansion rate.

You won't notice that it does much until the rings break in on the engine and the compression comes up... takes a good 1000mi or more to get the full effect. You probably shouldn't even use it until then... goes with the "drive it easy" for the first 1000 mi advise. But once it starts working, you can use it for decents on steep grades as mentioned here... but I also use it to down shift in heavy freeway traffic so I don't have to move my foot to the brake pedal. Much like you can do in a manual by down shifting, but not quite as effective. But keep in mind that this is a FWD vehicle and downshifting to attain engine braking can be fraught with TERROR should the roadbed be unexpectedly slippery. Additionally remember that engine braking can reduce the functionality of ABS to nil...

Yes, maybe by next year we will see a true hybrid, in the nature of the Prius, one designed for FE, not for the boy-racer mentality type. A Miller Cycle I4 with a variable speed/volume supercharger? A supercharger that only supplies sea level atmospheric pressure unless you put your foot in it..?

Perhaps the parts guys want to sell more transmissions? :) I think the 100,00 mile question might have been based on the fact that the 2001 owners manual had no recommendation for any type of scheduled transaxle/ATF maintenance for the life of the vehicle.

"...most of the issues appear to be corrected by 2001...." NOT! At 40,000 miles the ATF in my 2001 AWD RX300 smelled burned and looked unusually dirty, dark brown. The early RX transaxle were failing prematurely due to adopting a new shift schedule/pattern wherein the transaxle is ALWAYS upshifted upon a full lift-throttle event. The problem was that if the driver then quickly re-applied throttle there was not enough ATF oil pump capacity to quickly engage the new downshift clutches sinc ethe engine was now at idle. The fix they used in 2001 was to increase the pumping capacity of the gear type ATF oil pump so it could supply enough pressure/flow for that second sequential gear change. That resulted in overheating the ATF even though the towing package ATF cooler was supplied as standard equipment. So, if you wish to purchase a 2001 to 2003 RX be sure it has the extrenal ATF cooler and check the ATF condition at least every 15,000 miles. In2004 the RX330 went back to the standard capacity ATF pump displacement but had a DBW, e-throttle, that was used to delay the onset of engine torque long enough for that second shift to be completed successfully.