wwest

IMMHO the sound system, either one, in the LS400 has virtually perfect balance. Were I you I would replace all of the speakers, including the sub, with upscale models but of equal diameter. You might wantn to concentrate your upgrades to visual ones which can be more readily appreciated by your son's friends, er..."audinence". BBS wheels, debaging, aftermarket billet grille, etc.

Shorted bulb??

And how do you know if the OEM filter wasn't impregnated with an anti-microbial material, fungicide, to prevent or !Removed! the breeding and growth of mold and mildew spores?

My "cut". There is a rumor that the upcoming fix involves replacing the transaxle's SLT solenoid. That's the electrically actuated solenoid to which the engine/transaxle ECU applies a duty-cycle modulated 12 volt drive signal in order to "minutely" and "precisely" control the hydraulic pressure level used to actuate the clutches within the transaxle. I had supposed quite some time ago that the root problem might have to do with the volume, capacity, of the transaxle's fixed displacement hydraulic pump. Case in point.... "Hesitation seems to be much worse, more pronounced, with sudden throttle movement from idle to WOT. The transaxle's hydraulic pump is directly driven by the engine via the torque converter's output mainshaft/case. The pump's volume capacity would obviously be at it's lowest with the engine at idle. Also, with the engine at idle the ECU's command to the SLT solenoid would be to only sustain minimum pressure. In other words what fluid volume the pump is capable of pumping at idle is being "bled off" without any substantial pressure in reserve, no accumulator. And now you suddenly go WOT! In all likihood the ECU reacts immediately and orders the SLT solenoid to the maximum hydraulic pressure position. But now how many turns of the engine will it take pump enough fluid to build the pressure required to begin the newly commanded downshift sequence? Begin the downshift sequence too early, before pressure builds, and there is not enough pressure to fully and firmly seat the clutches' frictional surfaces and you end up with premature transaxle failures as is happening with the earlier 4 speed transaxles. And just suppose you have been a little indecisive about whether or not you can accelerate fast enough to safety merge into that upcoming opening in the high speed lane traffic and your indecisiveness is unconsciously reflected by foot action on the gas pedal. A few slight back and forth movements of the gas pedal could result in initiating an upshift and now you have definitely exhausted any "reserve" hydraulic pressure. On the other hand. You are not at all indecisive and when you decide to accelerate you depress the gas pedal to WOT but at a moderate rate. The ECU will almost instantly release the torque converter lockup clutch and change the SLT command for high pressure and now as the engine RPM rises in response to the increasing throttle opening the transaxle's hybraulic pump flow volume will increase accordingly. S..m...ooooo..th downshift, QUICK TOO!

Some one asked why disabling O/D and/or manually shifting into 4th might help alleviate the hesitation symptom......... The root cause of the "engine" hesitation seems to be that the Engine/Transaxle ECU's firmware is designed/specified such that it "wants" to upshift the transmission at any possible time. Moving the transaxle into the highest possible gear would undoubtedly result in longer coastdown distances, less engine compression braking, and therefore improve the vehicle's fuel economy by some EPA measureable amount/level. In my own personal opinion it may also be to reduce the potential for loss of directional control due to wheelslip caused by engine compression braking on FWD vehicles. But be that as it may, if you can reduce the ECU's upshift options, disable O/D and manually downshift into forth, then it is much more likely that the shift sequence controller will not be in the process of commanding/controlling an upshift sequence and will be available to "command" the downshift that you need for acceleration when you next depress the gas pedal. Someone on another forum had "argued" that the tramsmission upshifting when you release the gas pedal is exactly what it should do and always had done. There is to me a great deal of truth in that statement so it sent me off wondering and then into some research. I have earlier stated that my test drive a few months ago in a BMW X3 (definite rear torque biased AWD) resulted in my noting that when I released the gas pedal on the X3 at ~50MPH I got lots, LOTS of engine compression braking. On my 2001 AWD RX300 I get virtually none in the same circumstance. So I went back and test drove the X3 again. The difference is that if you fully release the gas pedal on the X3 the firmware seemingly "assumes" that your desire, intent, is to slow the vehicle somewhat rapidly. On the other hand in the X3 if you are in a "mid-gear, say for acceleration, and then you simply moderate, lift the gas pedal slightly, then it will upshift just as the RX300 does. So the major difference seems to be the variation in what the two vehicles do with a (sudden?) fully closed throttle while in a middle gear.

I bought a 92 in Burgandy because it was monotone. 92 black was/is also.

179k miles.... Intermittent blower failures followed by complete failure. Commutator brushes have worn out in the DC blower motor.

Traction control on a RWD vehicle is utterly and totally useless provided you know to quickly release and then feather the throttle when wheelspin/slip occurs.

How about we throw a bit of fairness, objectivity, into this "fray"?? Several years ago I purchased a new 2003 Prius. It does not achieve the advertised EPA MPG ratings nor did I expect it would. According to the onboard computer it averaged 43MPG for the last 7394 miles, 95% in city. Odometer indicates 17119 miles since it rolled off the showroom floor. 405.151 gallons to travel a total of 17119 miles gives us 42.253MPG. Guess that computer is pretty accurate. This morning I noted that the average MPG reading on my 2001 AWD RX300 is 17.2MPG. That's very likely at least a 3,000 mile average if not as much as 5,000 miles. It very likely includes several highway trips of 200 to 300 miles. To put that into context that is about the MPG we could get in our 1992 Jeep Cherokee Limited with the I6 motor with purely highway miles. We get ~22MPG in the RX300 for pure highway travel. Not all that bad, all things considered. So, 20-24MPG in city for the RX400h is about a 20% to 40% MPG improvement over my 2001 AWD RX300. Also not bad. But. RX400h highway cruise MPG.... When I first bought the prius I noted that the batteries continued to be used even at a constant highway speed. On a trip to Portland from Seattle, ~150 miles, other than driving HP, the ICE needed to be used at least 4 times to bring the batteries back up to a charged state. This made no sense to me so I bought the Prius manuals to begin looking into the possibility of disconnecting the batteries during highway trips to extend the MPG rating. NOT POSSIBLE! The Prius CVT, Constantly Variable Transmission, is not the same one most of us are familier with. Basically the CVT in the Prius and the RX400h is simply a differential, very much like the one found in many transfer cases of an early 4X4. The ICE drives one input and the electric motor drives the other input. The rate at which the output shaft turns is the "sum" of the two inputs. The bottom line is that the electric motor MUST be used at all times, even at a constant highway speed. The "front" electric motor in the RX400h determines the CVT "gear" ratio. And yes, that is detrimental, possibly highly detrimental, to highway fuel economy. But not really a bad compromise if the object is to attain stellar in city, stop and go traffic, fuel economy and ultra-low emissions. Got that? IN CITY ULTRA-LOW EMISSIONS..........!!! Think Los Angeles. So, my mind is made up, my next vehicle will be a new 2006 AWD RX330 (350??) with air suspension. That's provided, of course, that the engine hesitation symptom is overcome by then.

Changing the transmission fluid will not extend the life of the clutch frictional surfaces. Putting in new fluid will allow the hydraulically actuated valves, pistons, etx, to return to normal operation. The fluid you remove is contaminated with the residue of the clutch frictional surfaces which has prevented it from functioning properly, purely as a hydraulic fluid, as was intended. Whichever frictional surface, or surfaces, is wearing at an undue rate will continue the same wear rate and the transaxle will therefore still fail prematurely. Certainly not as soon as it would if the fluid were allowed to continue to degrade but fail it will.

RX400hGirl... If you don't reset the computer after each trip you get 20-24MPG (the "TRUE" average!). But if you reset it after each trip you get 30MPG. That's called peak detection to some of us. Appologies in advance, but are you truly a BLOND??

Remove the cable temporarily from the valve and move the valve into the fully closed position and then test the system. But remember it will take a while for the heater core to cool after you fully close the valve. While the cable is disconnected check its full travel distance from max heat to max cool. Make sure the fully closed or fully open position of the valve isn't restricting the cable travel. Adjust the cable sleeve clamp to attain unrestricted cable travel.

Gee, even my 1984 T-bird could do better than that! I saw it indicating 140MPG going, coasting, down the eastside of Snoqualmie pass in neutral.

Cross-pollenization results in common flaws throughout specific fleets. European climate control systems designed by Bosch cause exterior fogging of the windshield surface by inappropriately CHILLING the windshield on a HOT and HUMID day. Asian climate control system by NipponDenso, Denso US, cause interior windshield fogging as a result of NOT keeping the windshield WARMED on a COLD and HUMID day. Who, what entity, other than an actual automobile manufacturer, was the arther of the original source code for electronically controlled transaxle and transmssion shifting sequences? The original SIN!

I firmly believe that back in the early days of the RX300 (possibly earlier) they started using the torque converter lockup clutch for more than just OD. Both my 2000 and 2001 AWD RX300 Lexus shop manuals seem to indicate that the lockup clutch is engaged anytime the vehicle is in cruise mode, no "high" level of torque needed from the engine or the torque converter/multiplier for acceleration. Disengaged only during acceleration, shift sequencing, and to prevent engine stalling during coastdown or slowing to a stop. I have no question that using the lockup clutch in this manner, along with upshifting during coastdown or slowing to a stop, would have resulted in a significant level of additional fuel economy along with muchly improved emissions. But. Somewhere along the line they discovered that using the lockup clutch in this way, and/or upshifting the transaxles during coastdown, was to the detriment of the frictional surface of the clutch pack(s). The first RX300 was shipped in 1998 and so the new fuel economy and emissions numbers are well entrenched in the public mind by the time these transaxles begin to show signs of premature failures. And how do you go about telling the public, the EPA and CARB that you screwed up and now you must recall a Gazillon Toyota's and Lexii to fix the transaxle firmware. And oh, by the by, a simple firmware fix is available (only use lockup for OD) but would result in higher emissions and ~10% lowered fuel economy for this entire fleet. So, by 2001 the engineers came up with a quick and dirty solution. No time to road test. DBW, e-throttle. "If we can prevent the engine from developing high levels of torque while these clutches are engaging and disengaging then their frictional surfaces will not wear out prematurely...." What is that movie that's out on DVD now....?? Something about unintended consequences..... So, if I am correct then a FIX would of necessity apply to the entire Toyota and Lexus FWD fleet from at least 1998 forward. Good luck seeing a fix this century.

I firmly believe that back in the early days of the RX300 (possibly earlier) they started using the torque converter lockup clutch for more than just OD. Both my 2000 and 2001 AWD RX300 Lexus shop manuals seem to indicate that the lockup clutch is engaged anytime the vehicle is in cruise mode, no "high" level of torque needed from the engine or the torque converter/multiplier for acceleration. Disengaged only during acceleration, shift sequencing, and to prevent engine stalling during coastdown or slowing to a stop. I have no question that using the lockup clutch in this manner, along with upshifting during coastdown or slowing to a stop, would have resulted in a significant level of additional fuel economy along with muchly improved emissions. But. Somewhere along the line they discovered that using the lockup clutch in this way, and/or upshifting the transaxles during coastdown, was to the detriment of the frictional surface of the clutch pack(s). The first RX300 was shipped in 1998 and so the new fuel economy and emissions numbers are well entrenched in the public mind by the time these transaxles begin to show signs of premature failures. And how do you go about telling the public, the EPA and CARB that you screwed up and now you must recall a Gazillon Toyota's and Lexii to fix the transaxle firmware. And oh, by the by, a simple firmware fix is available (only use lockup for OD) but would result in higher emissions and ~10% lowered fuel economy for this entire fleet. So, by 2001 the engineers came up with a quick and dirty solution. No time to road test. DBW, e-throttle. "If we can prevent the engine from developing high levels of torque while these clutches are engaging and disengaging then their frictional surfaces will not wear out prematurely...." What is that movie that's out on DVD now....?? Something about unintended consequences..... So, if I am correct then a FIX would of necessity apply to the entire Toyota and Lexus FWD fleet from at least 1998 forward. Good luck seeing a fix this century.

You will not find metal shavings in the sump pan. What you will find is a thick layer, ~1/8th", of what appears to be carbon pencil lead ground up into a fine powder. I suspect the origin to be the frictional surface of one or more of the transaxle's clutches. That's what I found at 45,000 miles. There are three flat permanent magnet attached to the floor of the sump pan and those had some metal filings attached but not to a level that was worrisome to me. Mine is an AWD 2001 RX300 and the factory agrees that like the manual says there is NO recommended fluid maintenance for the life of the vehicle. But something is definitely very wrong in these transaxles. I fully expect a transaxle failure by the time my RX reacheds 70 - 80,000 miles. If/when that time comes and Lexus doesn't step up to the plate they will be hearing from my attorney in very short order.

Never, NEVER, give a used car salesperson the benefit of the doubt. And keep your wallet in your pocket and your hand over the pocket!

I wonder... I didn't bother with the engine end of the EGR pipe, assumed fresh incoming air there wouldn't be detrimental to operation. Guess I guessed right for a change.

Be sure your carpet pad/mat hasn't come loose and is "trapped" behind the brake pedal and over the gas pedal. Has happened to me more than once.

Simple. Disconnect the egr pipe at the exhaust end, complete the "break" if necessary, bend the pipe over 180 degrees, hammer it shut and reinstall. Worked fine on my 95 LS. Passes emissions flawlessly.

And be sure and clean the nicotine coating off of the inside of the windows and windshield surfaces.

Do keep in mind that your VIN# does not contain any i's nor o's, only 1's and 0's, one's and zeroes.

The warranty for engine sludging likely still applys, check with a dealer.

You must use, input, the owner and address EXACTLY as it was typed on the purchase contract at the dealer.