wwest

The NipponDenso engineers who have been designing Toyota and Lexus automatic climate control system have a rather serious shortcoming in their educational level insofar as human comfort factors are concerned. The human comfort equation has a great deal to do with radiant heating effects, not JUST the temperature of the atmosphere surrounding our bodies. Your body is ALWAYS radiating HEAT outwards, and at the same time being heated by all the surrounding objects that are warm enough to themselves be radiating HEAT. In the wintertime, especially at night, the level of INCOMING heat to your body is minimized and yet these systems still operate as if it were a warm summer day insofar as the radiant heating level of the human body is concerned. There are a few c-best options that are available in certain models of the RX series, not sure if your 99 has any of them. My 2001 Rx300 has two of those set by the dealer to help alleviate some of the discomforting factors. I can disable, indefinitely, the operation of the A/C compressor by simply switching it off one time. The "link" that results in the automatic operation, with no indication to you of same, of the A/C compressor in defrost/defog/demist mode is severed. Prior to these two c-best options becoming available, or of my becoming knowledgeable of their availability, I simply disconnect the A/C compressor clutch circuit during the winter months. Of more recent times, newer than my 2001, a c-best option has become available wherein you can prevent the system from automatically switching from footwell, heating, mode, into cooling mode, cool and dry airflow to the face and upper body. Very, VERY discomforting and in reality, HAZARDOUS. The Lexus climate control will automatically switch to cooling mode once the cabin atmosphere's air temperature rises to, or nearby, your temperature setpoint. This will not only be somewhat discomforting to your passengers, it might result in allowing the interior windshield surface to decline to the dewpoint of the cabin atmosphere, the point at which condensation will begin to form on that surface. In cooling mode there is NO LEAKAGE of system airflow to the windshield warming airflow ducts so it will not be unusual at all for the windshield to begin to fog over if the system is left to itself, left in cooling mode, during predominantly cool or COLD weather. So, do as I do and NEVER allow the system to remain in cooling mode during the cool months, times, of the year. Basically times when the A/C is useless except for the unlikely, highly questionable, possibility of being efficient at dehumidification of the incoming fresh system airflow.

The shop manual indicates taht there is a mechanical heater relay that only applies power to the solid state "blower motor control relay" if the climate control system is turned on. The solid state blower motor control relay uses PWM, Pulse Width Modulation, to vary the average power level to the blower motor and thereby the speed of that motor. It sound as if the final output drive transister, MOSFET, of the controller is shorted.

Thanks RX. Can you also answer my questions about axle removal. Thanks. That "special tool" shown in the shop/repair manual looks to be a "slide" hammer, in which case extracting the halfshaft from the transaxle would/should be a simple matter. The "snap ring" is likely of the "wire" type and the internal retaining "sleeve" is therefore probably sloped/chamferred to allow a quick application of force/torque to compress the snap ring and out she comes. My 2001 AWD RX300 hasn't had any transaxle problems other than the burned ATF at 40,000 miles but I haven't given up on converting it to SOLID rear drive and then having the front driven ONLY by the VC.

If you turn the controls to MAX HEAT, >84F, all of the sensors will be bypassed and the servomotors "blindly" driven into the maximum heating position. If the hot water flow valve is like my 92 LS you can even check that the remix/reheat vane/door is "swinging" to the max heat position by watching the push/pull cable on the water valve move to fully open. Does the blower increase speed as you raise the "target" setpoint?

I don't think the 2000 had the larger displacement ATF pump so it likely isn't subject to ATF overheating so routine or scheduled ATF drain and flush will be a total waste of money. It is, of course, worthwhile, as always, to check the condition of the ATF at each oil change period. The initial transaxle failure was more likely the result of worn clutches due to the insufficient ATF pump pressure/flow for a second gear change in quick sucession to a previous one while at engine idle.

Ebay motors...

There is a temperatrue sensing thermister inside the transaxle so you may have warm the engine AND transaxle....

Ford just "honored" a recall on my 1994 Aerostar....

RXHound. 1. My best guess is that the initial upshift due to FULL lift-throttle is not unduly stressfull on the clutch surfaces, NO engine torque to create frictional forces, HEAT. It is the subsequent downshift, with no "reserve" ATF flow/pressure, during which the engine torque is already rising that results in premature transaxle failures of the early RX models. 2. I do my own oil/filter changes and at the same time always check other items, brake fluid level, power stearing pump, etc. It was at one of these intervals that I noticed the condition of my ATF. So my plan is to continue to check/watch the ATF condition and if it should again turn dark and look and smeel burned I will change it out again. That would be my recommendation to anyone concerned. I don't know if the later RX models, >2001, presumably with the higher capacity ATF pump, are experiencing any serious or notable level of premature failures. That being said it is NEVER a good idea to continue operating a transaxle with known ATF "breakdown", once it looks dark and odorous, smells burned. So I would suspect that should the ATF not be changed out when it is appropriate to do so the transaxle just might be subject to a premature failure.

Lots of 99 MY RX300 transsales are failing prematurely, ~70,000 miles and above. These failures are most likely the result of transaxle control firmware changes to help prevent or alleviate accidents resulting form loss of control due to engine compression braking on a low traction roadbed surface. Up until Toyota came to GOD, came to realize that engine compression braking could result in a hazardous driving experience on a FWD or front biased AWD vehicle, there was no easy way to avoid these circumstances. Icy bridge deck ahead, icy spot ahead, QUICK, lift the throttle...!! Oops, car just spun out of control because, in effect, you just threw a "road anchor" out in front of the vehicle A goodly number of years ago the AAA starting recommending that FWD owners practice quickly shifting the transaxle into neutral in preparation for the day that the practice came to fruition. Apparently some time before the 99 RX300 went into production Toyota engineers came to realize that their entire FWD product line had a serious safety related problem. So the shift pattern was changed (this is VERY well documented) such that upon FULL lift-throttle events the transaxle would UPSHIFT so as to significantly reduce the resulting level of engine compression braking on the front drive wheels. For forever and a day automatic transmissions have made use of a fixed displacement hydraulic pump to provide the fluid pressure for engaging the various clutches and driving the servomechanisms needed. The sizing of that pump is somewhat critical since any level of "over-pumping" of fluid will result in wasted effort and be lost as HEAT via simply bypassing the excess flow back into the sump. Just like your power stearing pump and the engine oil lubrcating pump. In those case the critical sizing involves the capacity at low engine RPM and so the engineers must simply live with the excess pump capacity, HEAT, and the engine RPM rises higher and higher. Why is that tidbit important? Because now that you just previously lifted your foot from the gas pedal and the tranxaxle began, accordingly, an (enhanced feature) upshift sequence you might have, on rare occassion, the need to quickly re-apply gas pedal pressure. That traffic light changed to green, an opening appeared in the oncoming traffic you want to merge into, etc, etc. Oops.... With the engine at idle the (fully optimized) fixed displacement ATF pump could only, just barely, supply enough flow for that in-process upshift, now you're asking it to provide enough flow/pressure for the upcoming downshift. Sorry, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! So, each and every time one of these FULL lift-thottle events happened to you in your 99 RX300, followed by a need to quickly accelerate, there was additional wear and tear, unexpected wear and tear, to the transaxle clutchs' friction surfaces. I cannot say about the 2000 RX300 model year, but by 2001 a larger fixed displacement ATF pump was being used so the new, safer, firmware version could remain in use and the clutch surfaces did not wear out prematurely. The downside. While the 2001 MY RX300s were shipped with no routine or scheduled transaxle maintainance required for the life of the vehicle as stated in the owners manual, that was quickly changed to a need for an ATF drain and flush every 15,000 miles. That extra ATF pump capacity definitely helped to alleviate the premature transaxle failures due to clutch wear, but now the extra ATF pumping capacity that wasn't needed 95% of the time resulted in overheating the ATF. 2004 MY, the RX330, a new FIX. DBW, e-throttle, was adopted to prevent the engine RPM from rising until the older version, the original lower capacity fixed displacement ATF pump, could provide enough flow/pressure to fully and firmly seat the clutch surfaces the second time in quick succession.

I've been using LED bulbs/lamps in my 2001 996 C4 since new and updated my 2001 RX300 to them about a year ago. Recently changed out the original LEDs in the RX300 for a set from V-LEDs off of Ebay. I've been tolerating the bulb failure indicator on the dash rather than use additional load resistors but today I pulled the rear bulb failure detection module out and will be modifying it so its satisfied with the lower current draw of the LEDs.

You can always find aftermarket wheels for less than a dealer. They mark up the wheels a lot. Some people don't know anything about wheels and they seethem and say add it. They only care how much th payment goes up. If you're not familiar with what's out there, go shop at the better retail shops and make sure that the wheels you get clear everthing with the suspension all the way up and down. Go to tirerack.com

My Lexus salesman told me that a larger (to accomodate "Lexus class" third row seat) wheelbase RX was due this fall but has now advised me that it will come out in the spring and have the new DFI engine. Maybe they'll give up, finally, on trying to make a SAFE FWD or front biased AWD SUV and convert it to RWD.... But I wouldn't hold my breath.

"It's not designed for snow performance..." Someone should then advise Acura's marketing group as they are clearly misfocussing their marketing. That C4 off to your left doesn't exhibit any special AWD handling tendancies except beyond the limit anyone would dare take an RL in the normal course of driving.

If SH-AWD is so SUPER, way does the owners manual say the tire chains can only be used on the front tires? Super my A$$, just another patently unsafe FWD SUV.

Top off the brake fluid reservior...

Is the Acura RL a failure due to the V6 or as a result of FWD? Most people who have arrived at the "station", deep enough pockets to purchase an unscale luxury car, know full well the hazards of FWD on adverse roadbed conditions. Lexus might be moving the LS series upscale but if they can't get enough of "us" to follow.... I rather prefer being a leader, NEVER a follower.

I made a brief sojourn into GS territory, a 2000 GS300., took me about a year and 8,000 miles to figure out my 92 LS400 was a much better "keeper". I know the LS400, and the GS300/400/430 is not its equal, not by any measure. And just what would be wrong with a hydrid V6 based 2008 LSXXX? It would likely outperform the new/current LS in all categories, especially so in FE. Build it, they will come.....

My 2001 Rx300 has two ATF drain bolts/plugs. One drains the transaxle itself and the other drains the diff'l sump. If yours is the same way then the syringe wouldn't work to drain the ATF from the diff'l sump.

Why can't we get Lexus to build an LS350 for those very interested in a new LS but also very put off by the 0-60 crowd over-coming the desire for FE? My 1992 LS has "only" 248 HP, but I have never noted any real shortcoming as a result. How about, even, a smallish DFI V6 hybrid..? Love, LOVE, the looks, all all other aspects of the new LS460, except for the HUGE engine. And a hybrid LS600...?? Absolutely waste of time and engineering effort given the market size. Put that same level of effort into a "fuel conscious" LS hybrid rather than extreme HP and multiply sales by hundreds, IMMHO.

"...Hell, if u lived around here you would get to drive in the rain more days than the dry...." I guess you've never heard of the "wet side" of Washington state....

which would you rather take on a two hour drive a es300 or a reg cab tacoma, i have had the car since 01 i know how to drive it in the rain i normally over accelerate in both the truck and car. the truck likes to kick to the passingerside under over accelerating because of the trd lsd. and i will never own a car that has trac. or vsc. unless it can be turned off easliy, honestly i hate automatics.(but cant complain about a free car. the smell was not tires,it honeslty smell like clutch( i know that smell all to well also) that all of this is beside of the point. the car didnt spin it just revved up like it was, i know when thecar spin i have done that all to often also. tomarrow i am taking it to get the code read. "..Which would you rather take..." Back when I was traveling I didn't mind if the car I rented was FWD unless it was during the winter months or severe weather. Apparently you choose comfort over safety, I rarely do that, at least not knowingly. But my question is...why do you consider the Camry to be more comfortable, especially in the "wet". "....i normally over accelerate in both...." Hmmm, a leadfoot, like me some of the time. You do realize, do you not, that wheelspin/slip due to "over-acceleration" in a FWD is virtually undetectable vs the relative ease with which it is detectable in a RWD vehicle? If wheelspin/slip develops in any RWD, and your "light-assed" RWD truck will be especially prone to this, the rear end will quite quickly start trying to pass the front. Whereas with FWD the driver must rely mostly on the "sound" of wheelspin/slip in order to "know" too much engine torque is being applied for the current roadbed traction level/capability. That's why a traction control system is so much more important with a FWD vehicle vs RWD. "...the car didnt spin it just revved up like it was, i know when thecar spin i have done that all to often also...." The above statement seems to imply that you're saying that the "car" didn't spin.... Well said, well taken. My POINT, exactly. PS: What, exactly, is the tread condition of those front tires..??

Your ATF has a lower "volume" when cold vs warmed to normal operating temperature, so your ATF level (77k miles) may be just a tad low. I would normally tell you that ATF vs engine oil would have a definite red or pick tint, so if those droppets are pickish... But there is some sort of problem with our 2001 RX300's. Mine is AWD and at ~40k miles the ATF was clearly burned, looked brown, and smelled burned. First I drained and replenished the ATF using 4 qts as recommended, sold to me, by the dealer. Not much later I noticed the ATF was yet again looking and smelling burned. This time someone on the internet informed me that I also needed to remove the ATF drasin plug in the diff't along with the transaxle drain plug. When I went back to the dealer to buy 5 qts I was even questioned as to did I really need 5 qts. But having drained and refilled twice at about 40k miles I'm now at 60k miles with not obvious signs of the ATF being or smelling burned. My current supposition/theory of the problem with our 2001 RX300's is: A higher capacity fixed displacement ATF pressure pump was adopted after Toyota/Lexus came to realize that the primary causative factor for premature transaxle failures of the earlier RXes, particularly the 99 MY was due to their adopting of radically different transaxle shift patterns.

But how do I "declutch" it as I shift into 1st gear just as I am coming to a full stop so I can quickly BURN out? Absent being able to "declutch" the driveline in this instance might I not end up loosing directional control due to engine compression braking's interference with ABS on the front wheels/tires? Even with RWD might I end up fish-tailing once I downshift should the roadbed be so slippery that level of engine compression braking overcomes traction. With a clutch I would know exactly what to do.... MESSAGE....! You cannot have the operational capability of a stick shift absent a clutch pedal!

"...cause it was raining...." Why would you switch from a nice solidly "planted", otherwise entirely predictable, RWD truck to a patently unsafe FWD car because it was raining? I guess I should give/cut you some slack, maybe you didn't want the to truck bed to fill with water... Personally I would have put a few hundred pounds of sand in my truck bed and MOTOR ON. Sounds as if you have little experience with FWD in the wet. The burning odor was most likely your own front tires slipping. Upgrade to one with VSC/Trac or give it back to your wife, she'll know how to drive it properly, non-aggressively in the wet. As a general rule FWD, or front biased AWD, vehicles do not "try" to change directions with driven wheelslip/spin due to engine torque, making it somewhat hard to quickly detect/discern an over torque condition resulting in wheespin/slip. RWD, or rear biased AWD vehicles on the other hand, are somewhat famous for sudden chances in direction in this same circumstance. For instance your RWD, "light" !Removed!-end, truck would be especially quick to exhibit skidding or over-stearing in this circumsatnce. Also remember that under-stearing is MUCH more common in FWD, or..., vehicles, whereas RWD, or..., are FAMOUSLY more likely to over-stear in the condition you encountered. PS: I have concluded that your car does not have traction control since you indicate a CEL but do not mention the Trac fault light whichn is ALWAYS illuminated with CEL.