Slvr99LS

Mike, in the event it turns out that it is the ballast at fault rather than the bulb, on the 1998 - 2000 models with HID option the ballast is located directly underneath the entire headlamp assembly and is attached to the bottom. In order to gain access to it the whole lamp assembly has to be unbolted from the car, which doesn't look all that difficult. Due to the completely ridiculous OEM replacement costs, as an insulator against future 'wallet-shock' (and having never owned a vehicle previously with HID lamps), I bought a complete spare assembly with some cosmetic flaws on eBay not too long ago in case of an occurence just like you're currently experiencing. Curious how you make out with this particular issue since from what I've gathered it apparently isn't all that common for them to fail - please keep us posted.

These guys are spot-on... it's the strut bar/rod bushings. I just did mine on a '99 and it made a world of difference in everything from steering to braking, not to mention finally being rid of that aggravating 'clunking'. It's a decidedly un-Lexus-like sound. '84 Chevy Cavalier... maybe. Anyhow, I opted for the less costly, though far more labor intensive method of replacing just the bushings rather than simply swapping out complete new bars. Hey, times are tough and those bucks add up. Using a lift is highly recommended, if not mandatory for this job. Once the bars were removed from the car, (you'll need an impact gun or some good sized breaker bars for some of the bolts/nuts... and a torque wrench for reinstallation) cut a thin slot through the rubber and the outer metal shell of the old bushings with a Sawzall and they pretty much fall right out with a couple quick whacks with a hammer. Or a press would certainly do it, but I didn't have one handy at the time. It was clearly evident upon close inspection just how far the rubber had deteriorated after 10 years. These bushings are under a ridiculous amount of stress with this particular suspension design. Once you've studied the geometry, it's a wonder honestly that they last as long as they do. After everything I'd read on the forums prior to undertaking the job, I figured a press would also be required to get the new ones driven home, but it fortunately wasn't the case. With a good friend laughing, shaking his head, and assuring me I was nuts to even try it (I take that as a challenge).... I had the new bushings chilling in the freezer for a few hours, plus made sure to carefully lightly sand clean both surfaces. Then, using a simple large bench vice and a suitable diameter pipe to carefully push against the outer shell of the new bushings.... and.... they're in. Not bad at all. The laughter ceased too. :) After working out the procedure for doing one side, the other side progressed far more quickly. The lower strut mount does have to be unbolted from the hub which was no problem with that corner of the car supported. A small scissor-jack worked like a charm and also allows for precise height adjustment while you're realigning all of the bolt holes - sometimes easier said than done. Assuming you want to do it yourself, I'd say a realistic figure would be 4 - 5 hours labor total including futzing around with removal of the old bushings. In retrospect, to do it all over again, I'd likely recommend just buying the complete new bars. That would make the job almost a cakewalk. Hope this helps.

For what it's worth, I was glad to read your post. Why? Because in many ways my '99 acts EXACTLY as you describe your '98. It's a higher mileage car (well over 100K), purchased pre-owned and was primarily dealer maintained since new. On an ice cold start, if the engine isn't allowed any time to warm and is driven immediately, the initial shifts of the transmission... particularly the 2-to-3 shift... is delayed until a much higher speed than 'normal' for a given throttle position. I believe you're correct in that it has something to do with the ECU programmed warm-up. If the engine is allowed to warm first before driving, the shifts occur normally, although they are notably firmer when everything is still cold. I have also noticed that extra nudge you mentioned, particularly when shifting from reverse back to forward. I recall my '92 LS doing the same thing when cold, but it was less noticeable for whatever reason. Replacing the transmission mount did not affect that particular aspect, but it did take out a noted harmonic vibration from the driveline. I've also replaced the fluid because I wanted that bright red color back rather than dark brown (drained and refilled the pan several times over the last 750 miles or so) which definitely smoothed the overall shift quality, although it's admittedly "too smooth" for my liking. Coming from a performance vehicle background I'm aware that all that shift overlap the engineers have designed in their quest for smoothness causes clutch wear. Unfortunately I haven't found any aftermarket product out there that'll allow recalibration of Lexus transmission programming. Personally I'd prefer the shifts be somewhat quicker all through the range and I definitely wouldn't mind a mild 'bump' indicating positive engagement of the next gear. It's a very satisfying feeling once you become accustomed to it, the transmission clutches will last far longer, although I realize it goes against the grain so to speak of what the car was designed for.... which is ultimate luxury. A leather couch wafting down the road on 4 wheels. Some would simply say, if you wanted a 4-door sports car, buy a BMW... and I almost did (740i), but the Lexus reliability factor ultimately swayed the decision. In any event, just wanted to convey that having never driven another '98 - '00 model, I can confirm that much of the behavior you've noticed with your transmission would appear to be consistent with my experiences with the same car, with the possible exception of downshifts, which I believe should be virtually imperceptible when coming to a stop. For the record I was nervous enough about selecting fluid after all that I'd read that I did go with the 'correct' Toyota T-IV purchased at a local dealer, although I did recently do another pan drain and used Amsoil Universal Synthetic which claims T-IV compatibility. Didn't really notice much of a difference with approximately 25% of the fluid now being Amsoil. Hope this helps in some way. Appreciate your post. P.S. Curious, but what did the dealer charge for all of that work you had done when you first bought the car? Thanks again.

Think everyone might've missed the the real reason why this car was done up like this in the first place. It's actually quite practical. Ya see, you never need ramps or a lift to do anything... it'll never be a flood car even in Monsoon-strength rains... and it doubles as a comfortable 250HP V8-powered off-road vehicle with plenty of ground clearance in a pinch! See? Suddenly it all makes sense... B)

Aquatic

Hey J, I'll be getting back to the intent behind the original post shortly and proceeding with my mileage tests, followed by the results. I've had my hands completely full with this car over the course of the last month (much of it documented here on the forums in the hope someone could benefit from the experiences), so much so that it's single-handedly diverted my attention from other projects which are always on the burner. Anyhow, you're probably correct - 35MPG is definitely asking a lot from the car, but that was the intent. I've spent most of my life pushing the boundaries, and this is no exception... though it's definitely less likely to cause serious injury. :D Regardless of whether it achieves the 'magic number', it's worth the attempt in my opinion. The lessons learned from it should be applicable to any year/make/model of vehicle. I've never previously attempted anything like this, nor did I care to. I'm a motorsports nut who really never gave fuel economy much thought... what a boring topic, at least on the surface. Then you start to dig into the engineering aspects and psychology behind it... and... it's intriguing. Guess one could say I had an epiphany of sorts. This past year or two has seemingly been a really pivotal point in our global economy. I took it as a wake-up call that did more than vaporize the 401K. Not trying to divert the thread with a political statement, but watch the cost of a barrel of oil soar through that $100 mark again (taking the price of gasoline right along with it) and you'll see a huge jump in national interest again in this sort of efficiency-related experimentation. So why wait? Be ahead of the curve. Definitely isn't any harm in it other than the road-rage it might instill in others on the freeway because you're actually doing close to the speed limit. Need a bright flashing neon sign that says: "just testing" to avoid being rear-ended at 70 by the lady in the Dodge Caravan who's late for Jimmy's soccer practice. B) So far the mileage with this LS has already picked up dramatically from just fluid and filter changes, along with moderately increasing the air pressure in the tires. The results were so encouraging that it led me to write the OP. I definitely never expected the level of feedback from this thread that it has received, and I appreciate everyones time and thought-provoking insights. Awesome to hear that your car has gotten 30+mpg already. That's really encouraging. More to come.... P.S. I've also decided against any type of 'hypermiling' attempt at the moment... seems that's more of a test of a drivers skill and use of various controversial techniques than a realistic display of a vehicles mileage capabilities in 'real-world', everyday driving. I can see where it could get addictive though and take over your life - "I got 49mpg out of my diesel Jetta... I just KNOW I can get 50~!!"

Actually Curious, the GM throttle position sensor IS a perfect example... a perfect example of the point I was trying to make - that all is not always as it seems, a component can experience a partial failure, and not every sensor related issue will throw a code. Are we in agreement on at least those points? You're also understating how significant the temp sensor input is to the overall fuel curve. In many of our racing vehicles (most are still street-driven as well), a low-temperature thermostat is almost always installed (generally 160F). Factory 195-degree thermostats aren't even fully open in most cases until 210-215... heck, some vehicles don't even turn on the secondary electric cooling fan until temps reach more than 230 degrees fahrenheit! Not exactly conducive to making consistent power. Sure does thin out an oil too. We won't even get into the other detrimental effects of high coolant temperatures on an engine over long periods of time. Legions of gasket failures are but one byproduct. But for drag racing, the heat-soak between rounds is so significant, it's been proven to be worthwhile to pack the intake down thoroughly with ice. We're after cool air there... cool air = denser air, which means more fuel can be added and greater power output experienced for a given set of conditions. The lower coolant temps also signal the ECU to deliver a slightly richer mixture, and not just at WOT throttle settings. A very simplified model of how things react in the real world, but for this discussion, it works. We won't get into adiabatic engine theory here, as that's a topic for a potentially whole new thread. Suffice it to say, factory engineers are after very low emissions, and maximized fuel economy (meet CAFE standards - easier said than done). They also have to walk the fine line between longevity, power output, and the aforementioned emissions and fuel economy. Not an easy job. Sorry you don't find my theory particularly compelling, but I haven't heard anyone provide a better one yet. When one is given that presents a valid scenario, I'll give it the strongest of consideration. I recognize your desire to discount the observations I've presented, but we're also potentially talking about a whole lot more than "a few microns" worth of deposits here. I've seen rust/scale/corrosion more than an 1/8-inch thick in older cooling systems. I've also seen complete system failure. Basically plugged solid. Stuff turns to mud for lack of a better term. Ever seen what some supposedy 'extended-life' coolants like DexCool can do to a cooling system? There's been pending class-action litigation out there on this very topic for years. Try Googling "dexcool failures" and prepare for a full nights worth of reading. Having been around the block more than a few times... I stand by my assertions. Perhaps your maintenance regimen is superior to that of many others. I did note you own a much newer model of LS, so it's pretty clear your 2004 model is unlikely to suffer many of the maladies of an 18 year old vehicle for example. The majority of owners who've experienced dramatic improvements by replacing the coolant temp sensor are those with first or second-gen cars. Most have well over 100,000 miles. Many have 200,000 on the clock.... some, 300K. Probably safe to say most are riding around with the original, factory installed sensor still onboard. As previously stated.... I continue to believe there is something to it.

nice....any chance of you doing a pictorial or a diy on this when you do the mounts? i wish i had asked you to do one on the tranny mount as im wanting to do this but im unsure of how difficult it would be Hi Sakataj, about 2 weeks ago I posted a DIY on the trans mount on an LS (very similar) with photos of both the old and new mount. It fixed a significant part of my vibration issue as well and I highly recommend replacing it. I'll try here to attach the link: http://us.lexusownersclub.com/forums/index...mp;#entry371875 I realize it's a somewhat lengthy read, but for clarity I wanted to provide the whole story. Hope it helps...

I believe there is validity to both sides regarding the sensor issue, but it may be unfair to term it 'junk science' just yet, as I have a theory. The one side of the coin is, "don't waste $$$ on frivolous parts that aren't bad." Fair enough. I believe most of us likely prefer saving money over intentionally wasting it. But, it's definitely worth mentioning 'Jcrome' certainly isn't the only long-term member of this forum who states he saw a substantial improvement in fuel economy and overal responsiveness by doing nothing other than changing out this mysterious coolant temperature sensor - there have been plenty of others. So let's not dismiss their findings so quickly. They have nothing monetarily or tangibly to gain by starting or perpetuating a myth, right? I'd say this forum is generally filled with helpful, good-intentioned people. But, that's not to say the topic doesn't warrant further thought and consideration. My theory... and it's a fairly simple one involving thermal conductivity, goes a little something like this: Anyone who has ever viewed the inside of an older, well-used radiator has seen the tell-tale accumulation of crusty rust and scale deposits. Give it enough time, mileage, and particularly anti-freeze neglect (lack of periodic flushing and replenishment), and the entire cooling system obviously starts to suffer from an efficiency standpoint. The transfer of thermal energy from the hot coolant to the radiator is no longer anywhere near as effective. In extreme cases, the engine may even eventually overheat on a warm day with no clearly obvious cause. Now... bear with me here. This particular sensor is living in a hostile environment, projected into the coolant flow at the intake manifold for the life of the engine. With suitable age and mileage, a similar insulative crust may form on it which could easily be giving false readings... and those readings would tend to be low, i.e. telling the ECU the engine has not reached full operating temperature, thereby providing a richer mixture at virtually all throttle settings. Voila - a significant loss of fuel economy, and no check engine light! The sensor could easily still test within accepted parameters. Again, I'm sure I'm opening the usual can of worms... and I'm prepared for the backlash that comes with a differing view, so let's be adults here. It's only a theory, but it seems in my pea-brain to hold water. No pun intended. And for the record, I just spent substantially more on an air filter than the mentioned cost of the aftermarket replacement version of this temp sensor. Could thoroughly cleaning the sensor rather than replacing it make a difference? Perhaps - I haven't noted where anyone has attempted it, since it's so inexpensive to replace. Anyone? Over the years as a tech, I've had other engine control related sensors give problems without triggering codes and still measure well within stated tolerances. Perfect example is a GM TPS (throttle position sensor). Basically just a variable resistor sealed in a plastic case with a pair of conductive carbon tracks inside and a pair of metal 'fingers' which sweep as the throttle valve opens and closes. In a nutshell, it tells the computer where your foot is on the gas pedal. I've had several of these, on different cars, cause driveability problems without ever registering a code. Their voltage output to the ECU also fell within specs at both idle and WOT, but small virtually microscopic breaks or wear in the carbon tracks (particularly in the mid-range where most driving time is spent) were causing suitably inconsistent output from the sensor that it drives the ECU crazy. Swap out the sensor and the symptoms vanish like magic. And that's just one example. Simple facts: things do wear, none of us knows everything, and no technology is perfect. 'Nuff said for now. Back to the temp sensor - beyond mine, any other theories out there other than to just dismiss the whole thing as wishful thinking? Not stating for a second that everyone should just go ahead and replace theirs, but I believe there is something to it.

In the quest for maximum fuel economy, as well as enhanced engine performance, one of the simplest, least costly places to look is your air filter. Shown below is a picture of the actual filter element recently removed from my LS. Pretty easy to figure out which is the old, and which is the new. Lord only knows when the last time that thing was changed! Most amazingly, this was a Lexus dealer-only maintained car for at least 80+% of it's life (I have the maintenance records). Perhaps even factory trained technicians don't customarily check every customers filter if no problems were reported. Worth bearing in mind. This thing is so nasty you could grow mushrooms from it (see below). Upon close inspection of the filter there are dead bees, other insects, leaves, grass clippings, sand, and plenty of unidentifiable grime and debris all lodged in the pleats. It certainly did its job, as the engine intake side was still remarkably clean. If the factory filter didn't have such a large surface area I suspect this amount of contamination would've affected performance and mileage long ago. And it only takes 5 minutes to replace. On another note, this evening I replaced the original sway bar bushings to help restore the factory ride quality. The interesting part is that the OEM Lexus bushings come completely coated with a thin, dry-film lubricant to help prevent squeaks at the body-to-bushing, and bushing-to-swaybar interface. I'd never seen that done before. Indicative of the great attention to detail the engineers lavished on these cars. Briefly contemplated firmer aftermarket polyurethane replacements... but nope - decided on keeping it all original. Permission to vomit granted....

Sam I Am.

Whew is right! Good stuff though, and very interesting information on how they keep those irreplaceable warbirds in the air on todays fuels. I actually did take note of the 100-octane low-lead fuel available at the airport last week, but didn't realize there's nothing else available. On another note, curious why with all that's been stated in this particular thread, you and your wife don't run 87 octane in your cars? Personally, I'll stand by my prior assertion and continue to pony up and pay for the 'good stuff'. As another post suggests, I'm sure the big oil companies appreciate the pad to their quarterly profits. Shifting gears here and getting back to the core intent of the thread, another LOC member mentioned here the term 'hypermiling', and I may have to employ some (but definitely not all) of their techniques to achieve 35+mpg from the Lex, but yes I do believe it is a very realistic goal and can be done. One commonly used method is called P & G (Pulse/Glide) which is apparently very effective when applied correctly. In a nutshell it involves accelerating to a given speed, coasting for a period, then repeating. Hills and valleys can also be used to ones advantage. During 'coast mode', most modern fuel-injected vehicles completely shut off the injectors. Spark continues, there's just no fuel there to burn. I do know my instantaneous mileage on the trip computer goes immediately to '99.9' when the throttle is lifted. If you throw the car in neutral and allow it to coast, fuel is still being burned at idle, although you remove the parasitic drag of the engine itself so it may or may not be a wash on that count. Some experimentation is in order. I doubt I'll be able to do it safely on the freeway without getting plowed by a Peterbilt and/or pizzing off plenty of people, but for rural driving on lightly traveled backroads, seems it works very well. Either way... like I've maintained all along, it's going to be fun to find out. I've spent a lifetime going fast, what's wrong with a few days of going slow? I'm not looking to get crazy with this, just find out what's possible with relatively minimal effort and expense. Toward that end, here's some cool info I found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_...ng_technologies Straight off they mention low-friction lubricants, which is a great starting point I'm already pursuing. More to follow...

Aarman, thanks for the vote of confidence... seems you're the first! In less than 24 hours I've been told it's a fantasy, I'm dreaming, to strip the whole interior out, told I need lessons in thermo-dynamics and chemistry, suggested I burn 87 octane (why not 85 then??), who needs A/C, power steering, etc.... which all just made me :D ear-to-ear of course. Man, I love these forums! Interesting that you mentioned 'hypermilers', because I'll admit I have done some reading toward that end, and will concede they were part of my inspiration in the first place. Apparently the doubters far outweight the believers.... which naturally just inspires me even more to succeed. I'll pass on tailgating the stone-throwing 18 wheelers, thanks. And for the record, there will be NO modifications done to the car. Despite the suggestions to the contrary, the Nakamichi stays. The 225mm wide Michelins stay. All the seats... those stay too. And just so no one crys foul, I'll even eat a huge dinner before attempting the record run. B) I'm genuinely serious about this, even if no one else seemingly is. Bet if gas were $5 clams a gallon right now this would be the #1 read thread on the entire forum. This same time last year some nutjobs on eBay were paying $7,000 for a 14 year old Geo Metro with a 3-cylinder gerbil mill under the hood because gas costs seemed to be escalating with no end in sight. 8-year old Honda Insights with 100K+ on the clock were selling for what they went for brand new. People were legitimately panicking. How quickly we all seem to forget though. Fact is, we have a finite supply of fossil fuels and it unfortunately won't stay cheap (a relative term) forever. In the meantime, I'm having some fun with this. Thanks to all who've already taken the time or enough of an interest to follow along.

Brew always sounds good and we could add low tension rings, crosshatch angles, and plateau bore finishes to the list ... in the meantime take a look at this link and maybe add your stats while you're there: http://us.lexusownersclub.com/forums/index...showtopic=51747 Blacktop (great name btw!), thanks for adding to the fun. Never expected this topic to branch off into so many different directions... not that there's anything wrong with that. Suppose I should've anticipated at least a minor lambasting for even THINKING that an LS could achieve 35mpg highway under nearly ideal conditions. But, as a forum veteran, you yourself have stated achieving as much as 33.29... and with an older model LS to boot. I don't mind being called a dreamer. Just don't call me late for dinner. Without dreams and high aspirations very little is ever accomplished in this world. I wasn't challenging anyone else to try for the 35 mark... I'm challenging myself. I also never even mentioned fuel octane initially other than to state I am using the fuel spec'd by the engineers who originally designed the car. A lively discussion is great - let's keep it going! If 35mpg geniunely isn't possible, I'll post what the results were. It's my personal car that's the guinea pig, not someone elses. I would also never consider it a 'failure' if it doesn't happen... it's simply a learning experience which many can potentially benefit from. I also have no intentions of continuing to drive in a way which would customarily return this type of mileage. I'm a speed-freak... always have been. 9-second quarter miles aren't even all that exciting anymore... so mashing the loud-pedal on the LS isn't exactly a thrill. As they say on TV: This is a test. This is only a test! P.S. Since you mentioned crosshatch angles and specific bore finishes... what are your thoughts on the break-in process for a freshly built engine?

Hey, now we're getting some input! That's what I'm talking about. Appreciate the recommendation SRK. Actually I have studied aircraft engines in my travels... some of my particular favorites being the multi-gang radials from the WW-II era. They're aesthetically beautiful and sound like nothing else on earth. Then there was the incredible Rolls-Royce Merlin V-12. What an engineering marvel right there. On a slightly smaller scale, just last week I got to spend a few hours in a single-engine Beechcraft Bonanza with a 285HP fuel-injected Continental flat-6. What a great aircraft! Now, I agree with your statement on some counts... and disagree on others. I'll refrain from delving too far into a broadbased discussion and stick more to topic at hand... which is the Lexus LS-400. With a modern engine like this, depending on how wide a range of timing control the ECU has been given, even '!Removed!-footing' around at very minimal throttle apertures, utilizing a suitable fuel the ignition timing may be substantially advanced. Since the injector pulse width is also under ECU control, the mixture can also be leaned out beyond the stoichiometric ideal which will further take advantage of the additional anti-knock benefit afforded by higher octane. These are some smart engineers. Honda in particular has lots of experience building stratified-charge engines, even dating back to the 1970's with their original CVCC design which ran clean enough at the time to do without a catalytic converter. Now, what additional aspects of physics and chemistry would you like to apply here that have been overlooked? Looking forward to your response.

Unfortunately I'd have to say I strongly disagree with your assertion that running 87 octane fuel in a high-compression, performance engine would somehow improve fuel economy or is a legitimate cost-effective means of reducing overall operating costs. Assuming the knock sensors were doing their job and preventing your money-saving decision from costing you an $8,000 short block, the ECU (commonly referred to at the computer) will !Removed! the ignition timing as required to prevent destructive detonation (pinging), at the expense of throttle response AND.... fuel economy. The Lexus LS engine, regardless of year, was designed and engineered to run most efficiently on gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or better - case closed. Yes, it will still physically run on lower grade fuels, and some may even claim to notice no difference, but my racing and dyno experience speaks volumes to the contrary. Personally, it's a risk I'd never willingly take. Automotive forums throughout the internet are chock full of discussions/debates on this specific topic. Perhaps you would do well to read a bit about it. Won't cost you a nickel. I didn't create the post "Maximum possible fuel economy" to argue with anyone, although your input is certainly appreciated. With that said, I was never looking at it solely from a financial standpoint. If I were I surely wouldn't spend the fortune I do on cars, oftentimes replacing components that haven't even failed or given any indication of problems. That's called 'preventive maintenance' and I'm their unofficial poster child. In a nutshell, simply trying to determine what the maximum realistically obtainable mileage for an LS-400 under virtually ideal conditions is. Seemed like a fun thing to do that some others might enjoy reading about... or potentially even apply to their own vehicles. Some of the more basic concepts such as friction-reducing premium lubricants, correcting tire pressures, altering driving style, etc. can pay huge dividends regardless of vehicle year, make, or model. There's definitely a certain psychological satisfaction to be had from wringing the most out of a well-tuned machine. Fellow 'gearheads' I'm sure will be nodding in agreement. Whether it's shaving 2/100th's of a second off a quarter-mile time... or squeezing ridiculous gas mileage out of a 2-ton land yacht with a high-revving V8 under the hood. Inquiring minds wanna know. I'll post further findings when I have them to share.

Man, that is an exceptional car... shows what responsible ownership, regular maintenance, and climate-controlled storage can do. That engine still looks like the day it was assembled. If I hadn't recently bought one I'd be all over this car! Impressive in all respects. Good luck with the sale, I'm sure it'll make some enthusiast an incredible ride for a long, long time.

Would you believe 33mpg out of a 3,900 pound automobile with nearly 300HP? Read on.... Having owned this '99 LS for about a month now and logging somewhere between 600-700 total miles, I've definitely had the time to make some general observations and form a few opinions. Before buying the car, one aspect of concern, particularly with oil surging back towards the $70-buck-a-barrel mark and premium unleaded soaring right through $2.50+ a gallon (just in time for the summer vaca season of course - ever notice how that happens yearly like clockwork? <_< ) was definitely fuel economy. Yes I realize that buyers of premium luxury automobiles aren't supposed to be concerned with such trivial issues as how many dead dinosaurs an all-aluminum V8 consumes for dinner, but perhaps I don't fit the typical ownership mold. Short of jumping on the proverbial bandwagon and buying a Prius (vomit), I'm surely not against helping do my part for the 'Greener Good' of it all. Hey, we're all in this together. That includes maintaining all vehicles under my care to a very high standard of tune which would surely bring a broad smile to an ASE certified technicians face... as well as distributing plenty of hard-earned dollars with various parts vendors, both locally and nationally, more often than I care to mention. Being on a first-name basis with all the employees at Pep Boys and Autozone is nothing to brag about! Now, regarding fuel economy, since I do keep track of such things, I recall some years ago my previous '92 LS-400 averaging just over 20mpg in mixed driving with an absolute high of 29 on a straight, flat-highway run with cruise set at a leisurely 65 and change with the windows up and no A/C. Might've even been slightly downhill with a sustained tailwind. Good coat of wax too never hurt. Less wind resistance. :D You know, it really did annoy me that I couldn't get that car to break 30mpg. Oh well. Not exactly the end of the world. If minimizing ones carbon footprint is truly paramount, there's always the first-gen Honda Insight... or better yet, a bicycle. Anyhow, based on that experience, I was certainly curious what the '99 model with all of its engineering improvements (5-speed trans, VVT-i, more advanced ECU/fuel management, etc.) would be capable of. The '99 is an impressive feat of engineering and a genuinely fine automobile. If this car were a professional boxer, it would be George Foreman. Old, reliable, somewhat overweight, probably no longer at its peak efficiency, but always ready and willing to go the distance. A few other words also come to mind; Solid. Powerful. Relaxing to drive. Certainly stylish in a dignified sort of way. Sound system (Nakamichi) sucks on FM, but CD's are stellar. The HID headlights kick %^*!! Popped the trunk, gave a yell... and it echoed... it's large enough that Jimmy Hoffa just might be in there and you'd never know it. Those of the female persuasion have expressed the interior combination of California Walnut and jet black leather apparently qualifies as quite 'sexy'. Sweet. No arguments here. B) Good thing it has a strong air conditioner, otherwise the combination of that black-as-night interior plus a northeastern summer would lead to some serious swelter. Right Guard would lose that contest every time. No one likes to look dignified yet smell like a Wildebeest. Anyhow, I won't go on the record stating that I'm completely in love with the thing just yet since I've spent nearly as much time repairing the prior owners minor neglect as I have driving. Admittedly, this isn't the cars fault. Once the chassis restoration has been completed (box-o'-bushings inbound as we speak - among many other things) hopefully the car will grow on me like mold. Right now my early overall opinion of the ownership experience is pretty much neutral. I tend to keep cars a lot longer now than I used to, so time will tell. More on that later... So, how exactly do you get 30+ MPG out of an LS-400 and put the EPA estimates to shame? Glad you asked. For those that have followed my various rants and inquisitions over the past month here on this forum, you're possibly already aware I've already changed out the fluids in the car from stem-to-stern. It's the first thing I ALWAYS do the moment I purchase a previously enjoyed automobile. Fresh oil and filter change. Flush the transmission with OEM T-IV fluid (man, is that stuff slippery). Mobil-1 synthetic 75w90 gear oil in the differential. All new sealing washers on every bolt that gets touched to help prevent leaks. Power-flush the brake fluid. Oh, and that was just the first 48 hours of ownership. Yeah, I'm pretty meticulous (or is that ridiculous?) about my cars... but trust me - it pays off at resale time assuming you can find someone who appreciates it. Maybe I just have too much free time. Anyhow, I promise not to let this post stretch out 'til it resembles the book 'War & Peace', so I'll cut to the chase here. Assuming the onboard trip computer in the car is reasonably accurate (when filling the tank the gas pump seemed to agree), in mixed driving (city/rural back roads/bit of highway) the car is averaging right around 25mpg, admittedly going fairly easy on the throttle... especially until everything else is sorted out (Round-2: chassis bushings replaced, brake rotors cut with fresh pads, cabin filter, etc.). On a pure highway run with no stops it's showing a remarkable 32-33mpg steadily with premium fuel (of course), 36psi in the tires (less rolling resistance at the expense of a bit of ride quality - a fair trade in my opinion), windows up, no A/C, and the cruise set exactly at 70mph. I'm certain the reduction in frictional losses as a result of all top-quality lubricants throughout the drivetrain does play a significant role here. It all does add up. One slightly dragging brake caliper can also absolutely demolish fuel economy, just like a bad oxygen sensor, worn spark plugs, partially clogged fuel injectors, dirty air filter... the list is long and distinguished. Aggressive driving habits can also easily shave 5-to-8mpg off with no trouble at all. For some additional perspective - my buddies 2002 Corvette got 3mpg (yes... three) at wide-open-throttle... and 31 holding a steady 65mph. I get my cheap thrills on Japanese sportbikes so I feel no desire to flog this car. I didn't buy an LS to go fast. It's a living room with wheels. So far, I'd say I'm very pleased with the economy aspects, but I believe it can do even better. I intend to do some tests and dabble with lighter viscosity synthetic engine oils trying to safely eek out at least another mile per gallon. Maybe bump the tires up to 40psi temporarily... Personally, I don't feel it is impossible to realistically get 35mpg highway out of this car while still maintaining the national speed limit. Right now, that's the goal. I'll keep tweaking... if it can be done, I'll definitely snap some photos to prove it. It kind of turns into a game where you're aiming for a new high-score all the time. And with that said, if you're still here reading this right to the end... I appreciate your perseverance. You really are a glutton for punishment! Just kidding. Actually, it would be great to hear about the experiences other owners are having with this generation (1998 - 2000) LS in particular, although anyone is certainly welcome to chuck in 2-cents worth. If you're in the neighborhood, stop by and we'll have a brew while discussing the finer points of valve overlap and injector duty cycles... 'Til next time....

DT, I'd have to say I'm in complete agreement with '1990LS400' on this one. My current personal experiences with doing some chassis restoration work on the '99, as well as a prior '92 model all bear this out. It's unlikely that simply replacing the struts will provide the desired results, though it definitely couldn't hurt. The suspension bushings on these cars, even brand new ones, are quite soft which surely contribute to the smooth ride and overall lack of vibration, but they do seem to deteriorate fairly rapidly (under 100K of true service life) in many cases. Depends how the car was driven as well as how tolerant one is of various clunks and general looseness. Many choose to simply ignore it or are unaware of the symptoms. Since the degradation occurs so slowly over time it's possible for one to forget how different the vehicle rode years prior. Or in my case, simply purchasing someone elses higher-mileage car which had simply never had anything chassis-related done on it. We recently had my friends '91 LS up on a lift (115K - purchased new and never abused) and were stunned how much play has developed in many of the suspension components (all original). He will be undertaking a timing belt/water pump/tensioners replacement shortly and is now opting to replace several other key components such as the strut rod bushings, trans mount, and sway bar bushings at the same time. Purchased online these original Lexus parts are not ridiculously expensive. Barring any major unforeseen situations, these components (less than $1,000 worth total) should provide the car with another 100K++ of reliable, comfortable transportation. Think it works out to all of $50 a year or so amortized over time... or roughly the cost of one tank of gas. B) I couldn't help but note that even at 18 years of age, the car rides and drives far better than most brand new vehicles. The paint still shines brilliantly and the leather shows no cracking and only very minimal overall wear. Not a squeak or rattle to be found, and still the original R-12 refrigerant in the A/C system! Since the resale value of these greatly overlooked cars is now next to nothing, it just makes sense to do the work and keep it for eternity. Again, a testament to the solidity of the original engineering and the mandate from above to build the finest luxury automobile the world had ever seen. In retrospect, it's hard to argue that on most levels they achieved all of their objectives. Please keep us all posted.

Mike, I popped on ebay for a few this evening and typed in "OBD II scanner" as the search criteria and instantly brought back literally 100's of results. Seems you can get a decent handheld fully-functioned code scanner these days with a variety of features for about $60 or so here in the U.S. I then went on the worldwide site and found quite a few for less than 20 pounds sterling, plus shipping of course. My understanding is the OBD-II protocol is a worldwide standard that has been in place since 1996 so compatibility shouldn't be an issue in the U.K. or anywhere for that matter. On most of the mid-level scanners you can even view a live data feed which is kinda cool... watching in real-time all the sensors parameters changing (TPS, coolant temp, torque converter lockup, etc. etc.). Can be very helpful, particularly if you do plan to ever do any repair work on your own, or as previously mentioned, to help assure that a shop is repairing what they should and only what they should since with the scan data you'll be armed with knowledge ahead of time. Anyhow, I don't think you'll have much of a problem finding a decent scanner at a very reasonable price. Even your local parts depot should stock a few different choices. The higher end units (read: more $$$) offer data logging, access to ABS codes and other features you may or may not find necessary. Would still be neat to know how to get the car itself to display the codes without a scanner by using the onboard display, but perhaps it's not even worth the hassle. In any event, hope this helps.

Always an eye-opening experience to see what a true expert at their craft is capable of, particularly when cost is no object. Kudos on an astounding transformation. Wish I lived nearby... I'd say "sign me up!" :D P.S. That is one cool car.

Hey Mike, I did a bit of research into this since it seemed like an important topic that could be beneficial to be familiar with for all of us on the forum who prefer to work on our own cars... or at least not get ripped off by an unscrupulous mechanic or dealer! Anyhow, you didn't mention if the procedure listed was from an owners manual, or a service manual... and was it for a specific model year? What I have been able to find is that while you're obviously correct that your generation LS does not have a steering wheel button (or 'switch' as they prefer) labeled *Function*, the 1998 - 2000 models do. There are 3 control buttons on the right side of the drivers airbag for the trip computer labeled 'function, mode, and reset'. Under normal conditions, all this 'function' button does is allow the driver to toggle between warning messages (door open, low washer fluid, etc.) and the normal trip computer modes. I was looking closely at the steering wheel of a 2001 LS430 and it looks like yours are labeled on the left side of the airbag with 'Mode', and up/down arrows flanking it, then on the right with 'Disp1, Disp2, and Reset', does this sound correct? My thinking is that if you were to locate the particular button which toggled information on the display in a similar way to how the 'Function' control works on the earlier cars that it might display the DTC information you were looking for. Try starting the car, intentionally leaving a door open, and find which button changes the display from reading "Door Open", to your normal trip display. Alternatively, it's also possible this procedure as outlined only works for 1998 through 2000 model years?? By the way, out of curiousity where is DLC3 located... under the hood or beneath the dashboard? Looking forward to your follow-up, thanks.

I can possibly help address your concern of "reserved" acceleration. Part of that may simply be due to the conservative ECU throttle calibrations these cars received. Seems the initial travel of the throttle pedal doesn't generate a whole lot of action, making this gem of a V-8 engine possibly feel weaker than it actually is. You'll get accustomed to it quickly. The truth is, this soft calibration also contributes to a smooth driving experience which was clearly of paramount importance to the engineers. No one wants a Lexus with a 'herky-jerky' on-off type of throttle response. Rest assured though, if you continue to ring up the engine room and step down further, hitting the transmission kick-down point, the car WILL get up and GO! (assuming it has no issues of course). My '92 LS, while in excellent running condition with no mechanical problems, was notably sluggish feeling until about mid-throttle. Smooth? Yes. Incredibly responsive? No. Now, the 99 model is a whole 'nother ball game. It has variable-valve timing, drive-by-wire throttle, lower internal trans gearing for off-the-line snap, plus the engineers spec'd significantly more aggressive overall throttle calibration, at least in direct comparison to the first-gen car. I can't comment specifically on 1997 as a model year because I've never driven one, but you're still talking 260HP which should be enough to Git-'Er-Done for all but the most addicted acceleration junkies. Now, I will say if you mash the gas on a 1998 - 2000 model they just plain fly. 290 conservatively rated horsepower, and 300 lbs. of torque. I basically grew up and spent most of my early life on the drag strip so I have a very good understanding of physics as is pertains to acceleration. Also spent many late nights on chassis dynamometers. We're talking 0-to-60 in the 6's, and the potential for mid-to-high-14 second quarter mile times at almost 100mph for a strong running example (search these forums for confirmation... and you'll definitely find it). Not too shabby for just about 2 tons of leather-lined living room being hurled down the road. My 5.7 liter Corvette-powered Trans Am honestly isn't much faster (mid 13's... and a whole lot louder), and we won't even discuss the difference in ride and overall build quality. I'm sure others will also share their opinions regarding your noted observations, but hope this 2-cents worth helps. Overall they are definitely some of the finest automobiles ever built - I doubt you'll be disappointed.