wwest

The AC compressor clutch will not engage if the refrigerant charge is too low, the engine coolant temperature is approaching a point of being too high, at WOT, if the engine RPM is fairly high, or the OAT is below about 35F. Your front/outside temperature sensor is disconnected or open. It's behind the front bumper in from of the A/C condensor. Might also be a disconnected refrigerant pressure sensor/switch, that's mounted to the outside of the passenger side headlight.

Fake HIDs can be used to impress oncoming drivers, most of which have no idea who you are nor do you know them. Additionally the "faking" is done with light filtering tinted films on or inside the bulb's glass encapsulation and therefore you do not get the full advantage of the brighter filament (high current load)used to overcome the effects of the filtering tint.

Unplug/reseat, firmly, the relay that energizes the compressor clutch.

No, everything on the car is factory... and was in perfect condition, has not had any work needed ever on electrical system or anything else major recently (tires only). This morning I noticed that the doors wont lock while the car is on or key in ignition... I hit lock and it pops back to unlocked immediately. Hopefully on the same fuse and I just didn't realize it over the weekend. You may have a bulb that is intermittently shorting out, or more likely a bulb/socket combination.

Your wife isn't meeting the "too little" requirement.

Elevate the car, start the engine, in gear, drive the rear/front wheels, step on the brakes. AWD....I have no idea.

My 92 LS didn't get the timing belt changed out until 153,000 miles and the one removed looked as if it could go another 150,000. Basically you can ignore the PS leak as it isn't enough to be a problem if you top it off at each oil change. And it turns out that the PS leak has absolutely NOTHING to do with the alternator failure, just time and wear on the slip rings themselves. My slip ring brushes were only about 1/3 worn but the copper slip rings on the armature were worn down to the bare shaft. Apparently Lexus uses a really soft slip ring copper for some strange reason.

Fair points for certain but at this stage mileage wise, the 99 and 00 models seem to compare similarly on the average and there are noticabley fewer 00 failures than 99s. I realize that some failures might very well be due to poor or "non" mantainence however many of the most notorious failures on this list occurred in vehicles whose owners maintained them quite well (even excessively). Of course we've all been over this quite extensively so my point was just that if someone is looking for an early RX why not go with a 00 or 01 for only slightly more money, since statisically (for whatever reason) the 99's have more failures. I also have a 2000 model with over 100k and it is exactly the same as the '99. The transmissions in both cars are very smooth and shift exactly the same. They do shift a little differently from a standard transmission, but they are AWDs. I'm convinced that the majority of RX transmission failures are due to bad fluid. If the fluid is not completely changed out on a regular basis, the transmission overheats and burns up. It's really simple to understand, unfortunately most would rather ignore this fact and speculate that it might be something else. It's not. My only complaint so far is having to replace the overpriced air/fuel sensors. Both the 2000 and 2001 Lexus repair manuals indicate that these transaxles will upshift during throttle closed coastdown periods at 30-45 MPH or below 10 MPH. Not only that if you pay close attention you can feel the resulting "slingshot effect" at the higher speed and the "being bumped lightly from behind" just before coming to a full stop. It's like the engine/transaxle ECU firmware is playing Russian Roulette, "guessing" just what your future intent is when you fully release the accelerator pedal in these circumstances. When it guesses wrong, and it obviously DOES, and you suddenly apply heavy pressure to the accelerator pedal, the engine/transaxle ECU MUST respond by quickly downshifting the transaxle. Absent the DBW system adopted in 2004 your RX engine will begin to build RPMs the instant you apply pressure to the accelerator pedal and now those downshift clutches will slip and BURN as they come into engagement. So the reason the ATF in my 2001 AWD RX300 was looking and smelling burned at ~40,000 miles is because the clutches are slipping each and every time the ECU guesses WRONG. But yes, it is now clear, seemingly, that the transaxles in the 99 models are failing more often than later models. But we have no idea what might have been done in the interim, mechanically or in firmware, to help alleviate the BURN rate of those clutches. Obviously the adoption of DBW in 2004 was thought at the time to be the solution. Insofar as alleviating the clutch BURN rate it was, just that the resulting delay/hesitation made the whole upshifting issue a lot more obvious if not actually hazardous. But why the upshift sequence to begin with...? And why hang on to it in 04 and thereby be forced to adopt DBW...?? See below for a possible answer. PAY ATTENTION.....!!! Almost all of these engine/transaxle delay/hesitation complaints, if not all of them, involve FWD or front biased AWD vehicles. When you are coming to a stop, coasting down to a stop, if the roadbed happens to be quite slippery there is a real danger that almost any level of engine compression braking will/can result in complete loss of directional control. What is, will be, the very first thing you would do, instinctively, if you felt the vehicle was not following the direction set by your stearing inputs? Lift the accelerator pedal..QUICKLY...!! If you are very near coming to a full and complete stop and the transaxle has already downshifted into 1st gear the level of engine compression braking could well be high enough to cause the front wheels/tires to completely break traction with the slippery roadbed. I have been involved in moderately slippery roadbed conditions with a RWD wherein the ABS was so active the vehicle would literally not come to a complete stop. I'm quite sure that had it been a FWD with just a slight level of engine compression braking the ABS would have been ineffective, maybe totally so. It is in these conditions that the AAA is currently recommending that drivers practice and learn to quickly shift a clutchless FWD vehicle's transaxle into neutral in order to increase the probability of maintaining directional control. It is hard for me to believe that Toyota would go to these measures to increase the safety factor of their FWD and front biased AWD vehicles and then silently endure the adverse publicity without speaking up with an explanation. So let's suppose that the insurance industry held a meeting with the automotive industry executives and told them that if they didn't in some way act to reduce or alleviate the number of accidents, injuries and deaths due to FWD engine braking they would go public and start charging a premium for policies involving operation of FWD and/or front biased AWD vehicles. We all know that BA, Brake Assist, involves monitoring the rate at which the brake pedal is applied and ASSISTING the level of braking if the application rate indicates a PANIC stop. So what if they are now also monitoring the RATE at which you lift the throttle and then quickly upshifting the transaxle accordingly. A simulation of the AAA recommendation. And no individual company dare go public absent an agreement amongst all FWD manufacturers. Look at Honda/Acura, the SH-AWD system specifically, who among us would have ever thought of that marque to the first to break ranks and begin the move away from FWD??

REGARDLESS....of the above.... My point is that FWD and front torque biased AWD owners are, at the very least, faced with a DIFFERENT driving dynamics adversity on a slippery roadbed surface than are RWD owners. There can be no question that engine drive and braking torque on a FWD represents a different problem to overcome and/or adapt one's driving style too over RWD. And frankly, only the automotive insurance companies are likely to be in a position wherein statistics are readily available to indicate that one circumstance is more hazardous overall than the other. So, regardless of what the actual reason for the delay/hesitation may turn out to be we must admit that having the transaxle upshift to reduce engine compression braking might just save a few lives and will certainly result in fewer loss of control accidents. And lastly... Back in my days in MT wintertime driving there were undoubtedly countless times that I applied the e-brake ever so lightly to bring the vehicle back into line when the rear end threatened to come around and lead, especially on a slippery downhill roadbed section. So engine compression braking on a RWD vehicle can be advantagous in certain conditions whereas on a FWD in the same conditions it is undoubtedly unsafe.

For the hundreth time, that is NOT the case. PAY ATTENTION! And for the hundreth and one times.... Scarlett, I don't give a damn....!! No, really, yes, there are complaints of delay/hesitation on RWD cars, but the number doesn't nearly approach the level of complaints in the various forums about FWD and additionally there's not enough of them that are descriptive enough to form an opinion about the cause and effect. Whereas.... Regardless why is it that with the level of complaints this issue has reached all we are hearing is "it's operating as designed", or "it's to protect the drive train", and no known fix now for 4-5 years.

Thinking out loud, again...............PAY ATTENTION.....!!! Almost all of these engine/transaxle delay/hesitation complaints, if not all of them, involve FWD or front biased AWD vehicles. When you are coming to a stop, coasting down to a stop, if the roadbed happens to be quite slippery there is a real danger that almost any level of engine compression braking will/can result in complete loss of directional control. What is, will be, the very first thing you would do, instinctively, if you felt the vehicle was not following the direction set by your stearing inputs? Lift the accelerator pedal..QUICKLY...!! If you are very near coming to a full and complete stop and the transaxle has already downshifted into 1st gear the level of engine compression braking could well be high enough to cause the front wheels/tires to completely break traction with the slippery roadbed. I have been involved in moderately slippery roadbed conditions with a RWD wherein the ABS was so active the vehicle would literally not come to a complete stop. I'm quite sure that had it been a FWD with just a slight level of engine compression braking the ABS would have been ineffective, maybe totally so. It is in these conditions that the AAA is currently recommending that drivers practice and learn to quickly shift a clutchless FWD vehicle's transaxle into neutral in order to increase the probability of maintaining directional control. It is hard for me to believe that Toyota would go to these measures to increase the safety factor of their FWD and front biased AWD vehicles and then silently endure the adverse publicity without speaking up with an explanation. So let's suppose that the insurance industry held a meeting with the automotive industry executives and told them that if they didn't in some way act to reduce or alleviate the number of accidents, injuries and deaths due to FWD engine braking they would go public and start charging a premium for policies involving operation of FWD and/or front biased AWD vehicles. We all know that BA, Brake Assist, involves monitoring the rate at which the brake pedal is applied and ASSISTING the level of braking if the application rate indicates a PANIC stop. So what if they are now also monitoring the RATE at which you lift the throttle and then quickly upshifting the transaxle accordingly. A simulation of the AAA recommendation. And no individual company dare go public absent an agreement amongst all FWD manufacturers. Look at Honda/Acura, the SH-AWD system specifically, who among us would have ever thought of that marque to the first to break ranks and begin the move away from FWD??

CV joint.

Actually if you remove the pollen filter you should be able to see, above the filter slot, the fresh/recir damper/vane move to and fro as you switch between the modes.

And now for the "bad" news...... There are reports that some owners of the new RAV4 with the I4 (yes, I4, not V6) engine are experiencing the engine delay/hesitation problem. Want the really BAD news....?? This "new" issue, the engine over-speeding during the delayed downshift and then the sudden "lurch" forward as the downshift gear engages, is most likely an evolutionary firmware "fix". My guess is that someone decided to "direct wire" (make it act like a mechanical coupling) the DBW throttle via a firmware fix and now the onus is on the transaxle firmware control group to get the transaxle into the lower gear more quickly. Can you imagine...?? This all started back in the last century when Toyota adopted the ASL, Aggressive Shift Logic, in order to improve fleet FE ~10%. What these transaxles need is an otherwise totally non-functional clutch pedal that the driver optionally can use to "advise" the transaxle firmware not to upshift just because the throttle was "lifted". Or evebn go ahead and downshift into 1st if the speed is low enough. Drivers would then use this "clutch" when in a situation wherein you KNOW you will soon "re-accelerate" (merging), or maybe accelerate before coming to a full stop, by depressing the otherwise totally non-functional clutch pedal. None of that would solve the safety issue raised by engine compression braking on FWD vehicles if that happens to be part and parcel for the quick upshift firmware specification. But hey, we survived all these years with that FWD hazard so why bother.

And your mileage is....??

Why would you assume the gas pump at the station was/is correct?

Sorry to give you such bad news but at those miles you most likely have one or two clutch frictional surfaces that are worn down to the metal backing plate. The Engine/transaxle ECU control firmware in the 2001 models, and possibly (most likely actually) earlier ones, use an ASL, Aggressive Shift Logic, technique wherein the transaxle is always kept in the highest gear ratio possible. That often results in the transaxle being in the wrong gear ratio for acceleration or startup if the driver for some reason doesn't coastdown to a full stop before accelerating. The 2004 RX330 uses a DBW throttle control system to prevent the inordinant level of clutch surface wear incurred by the previous models. With DBW the engine is prevented from increasing the RPM, torque delivery level until the transaxle can complete the necessary downshift and the downshift clutches can become firmly and fully seated.

I have found the Bridgestone Turanza summer ONLY series to be the absolute BEST for comfort and quietness.

You probably have an intermittent brake light bulb in one of the five brake light fixtures. Not at all unusual for a socket to become intermittent, or the solder "dome" on the bulb base to "cold flow" over time and flatten or even become concave, or even an intermittent filament inside the bulb's glass encapulation is not all that unusual.

Do they come with instructions as to how to extinguish the failed tail and stop light diagnostic..?

In browsing the various forums and posts on the 'net it appears that the latest TSB, and/or OEM firmware version definitely makes these hesitation/delay instances less prevalent but with a trade-off of occassional engine over-speeding due to trottle valve opening before the downshift has completed.

But how often does that really happen in normal driving, once in a while maybe but enough to cause failure?? Agreed, absolutely. But. Assuming the transaxle is designed to survive for ~150,000 miles of non-rough service then certainly could be enough of these instances over say, 70-80,000, miles to shorten the clutch life by half. And keep in mind that in all this time, for most of the owners with faith in Toyota to not mislead them via the owners manual scheduled maintainance recommendations, the ATF is continuing to degrade a little for each instance.

Not sure about 98 but by 2001 Lexus was using PWM, Pulse Width Modulation, to control blower speed. Basically switching the ground side on and off very rapidly with duty cycle controlling blower speed.

Autozone will read them for free. Get the codes and post them up here. steviej And you need not bother with the Trac codes they came on as a result of any CEL.

Late in the last century there was a paper written and published by Sierra Research (I think) on how car manufactures might use existing technology and mechanical capability to improve FE as much as 9.8% This proposal involved ASL, Agressive Shift Logic, upshifting the transaxle whenever feasibly possible. Getting into a higher gear ratio "more" quickly will always result in lower average engine RPM and thereby improved FE. Torque converter must be "lossy" by design, to supplant the need for a clutch the torque converter MUST NOT couple very much energy to the driveline at low engine RPM levels. So using the torque converter lockup clutch more often, to eliminate those losses, will also result in improved FE. So, as of about the year 2000 Toyota began adopting these techniques. That resulted, at times, in the gearbox NOT being in the most appropriate gear ratio for what the driver's next intentions might be, became. As you come slowly to a stop the gearbox upshifts (feels as if being bumped slightly from behind) and then doesn't downshift into 1st gear until you have come to a full and complete stop. And if you change your mind, now that the gearbox is in 3rd, before coming to a full and complete stop? For the RX series prior to 2004 the gearbox would react always quickly and downshift simultaneously with the rise in engine RPM. These had a solid connection between the gas pedal and throttle valve. As we all already know the earliest inceptions of this ASL technique, the 1999 RX300 for instance, is resulting in premature transaxle failures. Pretty rough on transaxle clutch frictional surfaces to have the vehicle be almost stopped and have the engine output torque level start rising rapidly while in 3rd gear and have to downshift into first quickly. Burn baby, BURN!! Sorta explains why ATF needs to be flushed every 15,000 miles, doesn't it..? So, the 2004 and after RX330s (and others...??) get a DBW system to "protect the drive train", prevent the engine torque level from rising until those clutches can be fully and firmly seated. Lots, loads of customer complaints result and not just a few written complaints to NHTSA. What to do, WHAT to do. Well, lets just change the firmware back so the engine RPM rises to the level desired by the driver as quickly as the driver can apply pressure to the gas pedal. So now here we are at 2006 with 2007 models either here or on the horizon and the new engine/transaxle firmware has been adapted to eliminate the engine hesitation/delay effects. In other words... BURN baby, BURN. With transaxle space so very limited in FWD vehicles just how small must those clutches be made in order to have 5-speed or even 6-speed transaxles? Maybe Toyota has looked in to NASA's dust bin and found a clutch frictional material that will last for over 100,000 miles with the engine going "overspeed" during gearbox downshifts. Or... The engine hesitation/delay was deemed too hazardous to humans to warrant using it to preserve those clutch surfaces. Better to continue replacing transaxles than incur the publicity of producing cars that are clearly hazardous to the driving public.