RX400h

I'm not comparing the C5 to all Lexus vehicles, just the RXs. I drive them back-to-back quite often and the C5 feels just as comfortable traversing uneven pavement as does the RX. Of course, the C5's center of gravity is much lower, so rounding curves in the C5 can be completed at much higher speeds. Now maybe if I were comparing the C5 to an LS430.............

I recall that the manuals specifies 17.3 or 17.2 gallons.

Hey, I can sell my house here in CA and buy a 100-acre plot with six tennis courts, a bowling alley, four swimming pools and a guset mansion in Arizona. However, I'll take this puny 3-car garage house and its surrounding weather any day! (at least before I retire!) B)

Don't hate us for being different :D I promise I won't brag about my gas mileage too much! /ducks and hides ← Not to much to brag about from what Im hearing.......People say the mileage is not as good as expected..:cries: ← I've gone 250 miles on a half tank thus far, so I'd say that milage is very good, considering the tank size is only 17.2 gallons!

The 60s and 70s plastics were very susceptable to UV damage - much more so than the plastics that have been used in interiors for the last 20 years or so. I know because I owned a 68 Corvette for 22 years. Armorall skyrocketed to fame because their silicone-based formula protected the old type of plastics from crumbling in your hand. On the other hand, I knew a guy who had a Cavelier for 15 years. Its interior plastics were perfect at time of sale. Yes, plastics have come a long way from the 60s and 70s. Even the plastics in Hyundais are superior to those used during the muscle car days.

It's the same thing with Porsches. You can easily spend $80,000 on a Boxster!

Uh, have you checked the forum section title lately? It reads: RX300/RX330/RX400H SW mentioned that the 400hs may get their own section (makes sense), but until that happens, enjoy the company!

This is why I compared the ML350 to the RX400h - the cost. While technically, you can buy a stripped ML for 42K, it is unlikely that you'll find one anywhere.

The key is in the tires. The C5, like the BMW Z4 came factory-equipped with rock-hard-sidewall runflat tires. They produced slotcar-like handling but tended to transmit every small bump through the driver's spine.......enter the Goodyear GS D3 tires......MUCH smoother ride and much quieter. Their only drawback is a slightly less-crisp turning response. Try riding in a non-runflat C5 after riding in an RX and I think you'll "feel" what I mean. Getting back to interiors.....Check out the Pontiac GTO interior - right up there with the best of the Japanese.

I've read that Lexus sells more of this size and type (luxury) of SUV than any other manufacturer, including Mercedes. If this is true, then I expect the RXs to continue to outsell the ML line quite handily. The fact that the ML reliability has been at the bottom of the barrel for many years now doesn't help their sales, that's for certain. Regarding waiting lists: Some in recent memory..... The first Mazda Miata The PT Cruiser The Infinity G35 Coupe The 1997 Corvette The 2002 BMW M3 There could be some Mercedes models in the bunch, but I haven't heard of any.

That's old school GM. The new breed utilizes hydro-formed frames that significantly reduces welds and joints that would normally produce squeeks and rattles. My 2001 Corvette not only rides as well as the Rx400h, but also, like virtually all C5 Corvettes, is squeek and rattle-free after almost 4 years of daily driving. My seats are more comfortable than any others I've sat in, and I've been driven in Porsches, BMWs and Mercedes plenty of times. Now, about competition with Porsche: Both Car & Driver and Road & Track compared the new C6 Corvette against the latest Porsche 911. Both magazines voted the Corvette as the better overall sportscar. By the way, the new Chevy Cobalt is as quiet as the Lexus RXs. If you don't believe that, try one out. GM has come along way from the dark days of years past. They still have a way to go, but don't base your opinions on vehicles that were designed 20 years ago. As far as interiors go, the old saying applies to Lexus as well as it does every other manufacturer:

Horrible? Dang, we need to put you in a Dodge Neon for at least one week and then ask you again how the RX interior looks.:chairshot: I agree with Patt as to the unnatural "ultrasheen" of the wood trim that is commonly used. Keep the wood stuff in the house, I always say.....

Thus far, I have not heard of huge waiting lists for this gas guzzler, has anyone else?

I would disagree with you on that point, I think most people who are considering hybrids in general rank the decision criteria you'd mentioned in this order: power, fuel economy, luxury. And those considering the 400h specifically probably rank them as: power, luxury, fuel economy. Be honest, if the 400h didn't have the "neck snapping" 650 lb-ft of torque, would you have bought it ? ← Yes, because we wanted our next vehicle to be (in this order) Reliable Economical Tall Powerful If power were number one, we's have bought an SUV long ago. Remember, no SUV Lexus has ever introduced has generated the excitement that the 400h has generated. More power with lower gas milage would not have been nearly as popular as having both in one vehicle.

Leasing is considered to be a good choice finacially if the vehicle is used for business. However for most people, the better choice is an outright purchase. I'll bet the resale value remains high for some time.

Good point, Patt and Skyfish about the huge increase in torque that the RX400h has. Since I normally design fixtures and products that are not subject to large stresses, safety factors are a much less critical part of my job. BTW, I closely examined the RX400h wheels last weekend and I really like their design and paint quality. In fact, the exterior paint is also very impressive.

It is true that you cannot base any decision solely on facts and figures. However, I think we can all agree that they don't pay much attention to efficiency (fuel milage) when designing these behemoths. I for one, would not even consider buying a vehicle that has an EPA rating of 16 city and 20 highway. My Corvette is rated 19 city and 29 highway and is the biggest gas hog I own (as soon as I sell the Nissan Quest). Now, I would love to go to an MB dealership and wait until a bunch of salepeople come by before I point at the sticker EPA numbers in horror, gasping loudly!

This has been the complaint with the 97-04 Corvette for many years and the best explaination that was given to me is this: GM wanted to produce the highest-performing sportscar for the masses - handling, braking, and acceleration had to be beyond anything else in its price range. Certainly, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Mazda, and Nissan produced sportscars with better interiors, yet none could surpass the core competancy of the Corvette. Yes, its leather and plastic components were not what some would expect of a $50,000 vehicle, but in the end, Chevrolet's Corvette out-lasted most, if not all of its direct competition. The reason? Performance, plain and simple. The RX400h was always intended to be a tour d force of engineering achievement, so much so that in order to keep the price below the stratosphere, some "cuts" had to be made. Most know that Toyota is NOT making a normal profit margin on its hybrids. However, I would venture to say that fuel economy, power, and luxury rank in that order when decisions are made as to whether an RX330 or other gasoline-only vehicle is considered and purchased over the RX400h. Anyway, that's my take as to why the RX400h can never be all things to all people.

The standard LoJack is $700 and the latest LoJack that notifies police (or you) as soon as the vehicle moves without your sensor in proximity goes for $1000.

You would think that a wheels should have a fairly generous safety factor for loads due to vehicle weight. Even if the 400 weighs 500lbs more than the 330, that's a piddling 125 lbs per wheel. I guess in a sue-happy society, though.........

My garage doors are roll-up and the RX hatch door will hit them. I certainly wouldn't mind backing in but with a wife who is nervous about driving the RX in the rain, getting her to back in would be like pulling teeth - impossible! The best answer, I think, is to limit the hatch travel. However, because it is a power-assisted design, limiting the cylinder travel may not do the trick. I'll have to investigate further.....

The new Mercedes SUV with 3.5-liter, 24-valve engine was recently tested by Car & Driver magazine. The results? Horsepower: ML350: 268 RX400h: 268 Torque: ML350: 258 lbs-ft RX400h: 650 lbs-ft Acceleration, 0-60: ML350: 7.1 seconds RX400h: 6.7 seconds (updated from long-term Car & Driver test) Fuel milage: ML350: 16 city and 20 highway RX400h: 31 city and 27 highway Weight ML350: 4802 lbs RX400h: 4500 lbs Cost: ML350: $47,280 RX400h: $48,300 Interior sound level: ML350 66 dBA RX400h: 67 dBA I guess Mercedes fans will have to wait for the NEXT redesign before they can cut back on fuel costs!

It's not so much the diameter that determines ride quality (all other things relating to the suspension being equal), but rather, it is the aspect ratio of the tires. Generally, the smaller the ratio (width to height), the stiffer the sidewall and the firmer the ride. I've ridden on jarring 15-inch wheel/tire-equipped cars and super plush 18-inch wheel/tire-equipped tires. It all depends upon the aspect ratio.

Tires should be rotated every 4000 to 6000 miles (all and four wheel-drive vehicle tires should be rotated more often than 2 wheel-drive vehicle tires), so I can't imagine why you were told to have your Rx's tires rotated so soon. Now if it were a used vehicle and they forgot to do this, I'd understand.

Did you leave the shift lever in Drive and your foot on the brake? Even though the brake lights are LEDs, they may draw enough juice to cause the startups you mention. I couldn't find anything in the manual about total shut downs and the most I have let the RX sit in Park without shutting down was about 10 minutes.