Wow, the kid with the Cav must have been REALLY talented. I can state categorically that the Chevrolet Cavalier was NEVER available with AWD. Wishenhigh has a perfect example that just because it's on the net doesn't mean it's even remotely correct.
Viscous couplings do not use pressure to operate. Simple - think simple. So simple that all it is it two sets of spinning discs in thick fluid. Spin one set, and the thick fluid spins the other. Simple.
actually it was a vauxhall cavalier, which is quite a bit better than our cavalier, but because it was offered with the ecotec. I am not sure if it was ever available with AWD.
But you are right on, VC is actually one of the most simple mechanical devices that AWD cars have. There is no complicated pressure or temperature based viscosity relationships to worry about. In fact, viscosity in VCs usually remain pretty constant, and the viscosity change is actually very small, but in fact it is the existing thickness of the fluid that keeps those wheels spinning.
There are some other ways to create different viscosity relationships. One way is do use a gas bubble. When a significant differential of speeds between the halfshaft arrises, that gas bubble gets "whipped" into the thick silicon fluid, much like whipped cream, which increases the viscosity until the gas bubbles nucleate and seperate.
Once again, wwest. There is no temperature dependance in VCs, whether it is a direct temp/viscosity relationship or a temp/pressure relationship. If there were a temp viscosity relationship, everybody would be driving around with locked axles in summer, and driving around with an useless differential in winter. And if there were a temp/pressure relationship, it would be impossible to lock up in winter and the differential casing would explode in summer.
There is no simple, cheap, and efficient mechanical device that can turn mechanical energy into thermal energy. VC plates can only reasonably raise the temperature of the fluid a few degrees in a short time. Ambient temperatures exist in much more extreme ranges than a few degrees. If raising the temperature a few degrees is enough to pressurize the case, then raising it 50° will surely cause the case to bust.
I'll be talking to a few professors tomorrow who specialize in this kind of stuff. If you are unhappy with your coupling time in your RX, there are fluids that you can use to replace that will decrease the time. I am pretty sure you would just need a similar silicon fluid with a higher molecular weight than what you currently have.
I am considering buying a V8, 4wd 2003 4runner. I have a 1996 4wd 4runner now. When it is is 4wd, parking lot driving and backing is very difficult due to the front wheel torque. Does the new Torsion control differential in the 2003 correct this problem? I am reluctant to buy a full-time 4 wd if it is going to difficult to park, etc.
Your 96 has a Part -Time system. That's why your system binds up. With a Full-Time system you have a center differential to alleviate that binding problem. Several others can explain it better than I can. But trust me, you'll love it if you like 4WD vehicles.
That title is so all of you doubting thomases can bail now.
For many months now I have been theorizing that the Chrysler T&C minivan's AWD system is greatly superior to that of the RX and the HL. My theory was based on the fact that the T&C AWD system had a method for uncoupling the two drivelines, front and rear, when the brakes are applied resulting in the need for disparate rotational rates front to rear.
The front brakes do about 80% of the work required to stop the vehicle and in so doing they very often turn very slowly. If that slow rate of rotation were to be coupled to the rear driveline then loss of control would oftentimes be the result.
The T&C has an over-running clutch in the rear driveline for just that purpose, allowing the rear wheels to turn at a higher rate than the front during braking.
But, up until this morning I had no T&C with which to prove out my theory. My daughters 98 is here at the moment.
So I jacked it up so all four wheels were off the ground and repeated the shade-tree mechanic's AWD test that I performed on the 01 AWD RX300.
As it happened I was not able to block the rear wheels from turning in exactly the same manner as the RX. The 98 T&C wheels do not have wide enough openings to insert the light pine 1X2' with the thin dimension to "shear". So in this case the T&C had to shear the 2" dimension if the rear wheels were to turn.
With my foot firmly on the brake and the engine at idle I shifted the transmission into gear and then started releasing the brakes. The right rear 1X2 sheared virtually instantly, at engine idle. To be sure this wasn't a fluke I blocked the right rear with an oak 1X2. The left rear 1X2 sheared virtually the instant I started releasing the brakes.
I repeated the test one more time just as assurance.
The RX300 rear wheels would not shear the thin dimension of the 1X2 even with the engine RPM raised to 2000.
Unfortunately for you, there aren't many RX/Highlander owners out there that agrees with you...can't even remember ONE owner who agrees with you. Bottom line is that most (if not 99.999999% except you) owners love their RX and feel that it is completely utterly safe, even those that live in cold climates.
You give me the names and address, or even the phone numbers of 10% of those 100,000,000 RX300 owners (combine the HL owners if you like) you "polled" and I'll come back with at least 1% of those with the same problems I have.
Oh, sorry...
Which problem?
1. The AWD that isn't. 2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue. 3. The useless GPS/nav. 4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display. 5. The horrid mold and mildew odor. 6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield. 7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather. 8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor. 9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages.
bottom line is that if many other owners were having the same problems as you, we would be hearing about these problems from other sources. The simple fact that there hasnt even been a single squirm news-wise about the inherrent "unsafe" properties of your RX leads me to believe that other owners are not having problems.
I dare you to start a webpage based petition or class action suit, and see how many follow.
Oh and as far as your little list: "1. The AWD that isn't." If this were really a problem, then you should have heard about it before you bought the RX.
"2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue." You live in a rough area, and you neglected to research this? There are many modern cars that only allow chains on front or rear, for space reasons.
"3. The useless GPS/nav." If it is so useless, why did you opt for it?
"4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display." Did you test drive the RX before you bought it???
"5. The horrid mold and mildew odor." See #4
"6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield." All cars do this.
"7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather." How so? Is it hard to find the button?
"8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor." Huh?
"9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages." A legitimate claim, and the only one that I have heard stories of that didnt come from you.
If the RX is really that bad, then we would be hearing from many more owners than just you, just like the sludge issue. I havent heard a single owner on these boards complain about half the stuff you complain about. Also, good research when you were buying the RX could have led you away from it. Did you neglect this step in the car buying process?
I am not asking you to provide me the name & address of people supporting your view...i am simply asking for you to provide a LINK to a post of someone who agrees with you (here, ClubLexus, etc.)! Geez, i thought i was pretty clear in what i asked for above.
The problem: AWD system (that isn't, according to you)
Agreeing with other posts here, I have not heard any other complaints from ANYONE that we have sold Highlanders to and from many people who own highlanders, RAV-4's, RX300's etc. It certainly seems as though you're the only person that quite a few of us have heard of who DO have these types of complaints. Some of the complaints you're talking about are just not knowing how Toyota/Lexus vehicles operate in general.
1. The AWD that isn't. Discussed above
2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue. As in most vehicles, there are packaging limitations and if that means that you can't use chains at all or only on the front wheels, take that into account when you purchase your vehicle.
3. The useless GPS/nav. Useless how? It seems to work pretty well on the vehicles I've used it for. You'll have to be a bit more descriptive about this one...
4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display. Funny how Lexus and Toyota is almost always praised on their ergonomics. This is a subjective issue, however, and one that actually I will agree with you about. I don't like the radio controls being integrated.
5. The horrid mold and mildew odor. Let me guess, you're using the recirculate botton all of the time. Use fresh air and you won't have this problem.
6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield. If you have the front defrost on or the mixed front defrost and footwell setting, use the A/C in the on position even if you have the heat on. It dehumidifies the air and will clear up the windows.
7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather. See above description
8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor. HUH????
9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages. Agreed, they should use the front parking lights as the DRL IMO. But I didn't say everything you've said was wrong...
Wwest ... the Katherine Harris comment shows me your a Bill Clinton/Al Gore supporter. That explains a lot. They don't know the truth when it slaps them in the face. They make it up as they go. dpw
I am no expert on AWD - but I think wwest shade tree AWD test is flawed.
1. The AWD that isn't.
seems to work just fine with 50 50 front rear split
2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue.
This is the prefered location to assist with braking? Why would you want rear chains anyway - according to your tests - 90% of the torque goes to the front anyway
3. The useless GPS/nav. I don't have a Lexus - but from what I have read - its a great system - maybe your issues are based on operator error?
4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display.
See 3 above
5. The horrid mold and mildew odor.
User error - you need to dry the condensor before stopping the fan
6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield.
Use AC and it will clear in an instant
7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather.
See 6 above
8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor.
personal issue
9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages.
When I bought my first RX I had already been exposed to numerous Lexus vehicles, mostly company vehicles and almost all LS400s. So I did know of the climate control problems already.
But keep in mind that this is LEXUS we're talking about.
1. AWD NOT!
When I bought the MY2000 AWD RX I was told that the torque distribution front to rear was 70/30 and I took the salesman's word for that.
He was wrong, the torque split might be 70/30, or even 50/50, as long as the front and rear wheels have roughly equal traction, high or low. But the instant front slippage occurs the open center diff'l will route ALL torque to the driveline with the LEAST resistance.
That's when the VC should come into play, disparate rotational rates front to rear. It obviously doesn't.
So for 2001 Lexus announced that they had added a Trac system equivalent (I think the salesman said "like" the ML)to that of the ML320. If any of you have driven the ML or X5 or XC90 in adverse conditions you will understand my excitement at this news and why I went out and traded up immediately.
But alas, it was not to be. Trac didn't seem to work properly. Lexus then explained to me that were they to use the Trac system to allocate, apportion, engine torque front to rear then the VC would be rendered useless. (SO!!)
Now I can readily understand why Trac would not be used to apportion torque side to side in the front. Understandably LSD was not an option with VSC/Trac. Trac should certain supplant the need for an LSD in the rear. To date I have not encounter ANY circumstance, natural or contrived, under which Trac came into play.
Even if there is zero engine torque to the rear wheels it is a good idea to have chains there, in some cases even with no chains on the front. The WSP requires "drag" chains on tractor/trailer rigs in ice and snow roadbed conditions.
You might find me putting chains only on the front to get from my home out to the public roadbed but never farther.
And yes, I don't doubt that many FWD cars do not have sufficient clearance for rear chains.
But the RX and HL are both marketed as SUVs, anyone in that market should or will KNOW that chains, when used, should always be used on all four wheels.
I think the RX, and the HL, were designated, designed, for their primary market, a Macho looking (soccer-mom") minivan, and therefore the requirement for rear chains was simply over-looked.
Packaging limitations: right now it looks to me as if the front struts will fit the rear and therefore there will be enough clearance.
Sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but if you're having traction problems then you should consider tires - as I've mentioned before. I think it's worth noting that if you cannot remain mobile in inclement weather with an AWD vehicle shod with winter tires such as Blizzaks or Arctic Alpins, then chains will provide only limited improvement. I believe you also live in Seattle, which allows you the further option of steel studded tires during the winter months.
Maybe I should introduce you to the former mayor of Nyssa (Or) and let him show you what can be done with an old green monster jeep and chains on all four.
But the real point is that even with our Jeep Cherokee Limiteds, with the center diff'l locked and LSD, we often had to resort to chains even here within the local Puget sound area.
Of course a lot of that, but not all, had to do with the inexpertise of all the influx of CA drivers in the 89 timeframe. The only way to get around those idiots was through the barrow pit.
You know whats funny? Every state I have been to blames their bad drivers on California. Utah drivers are the worst...they arent rude, they arent aggressive or offensive, they arent selfish...they are just dumb. Flat out stupid. I was visiting for a weekend, and in that weekend alone, in SLC, I saw 3(no typo) people pull up to a red light, come to a complete stop and then take off, while the light was still red, like it was a stop sign.
And Utah says its all the Californians that are the bad drivers. Like people actually decide to move to Utah from California. Thats pretty funny.
Anyway, to stay on topic, I have never seen a snowy situation where a good set of snow tires were bested by chains. This includes some of the hariest mountain pass roads in California during a snowstorm. Old Priest road, on the way to Yosemite actually has some parts of road where the grade is higher that 17%, and I saw a Land Cruiser with snows take that road with zero problems.
Maybe you like doing the extreme offroading, but if thats the case, buy a Land Rover, not some sissy Lexus based off the camry.
The last time I drove in Mexico that SLC traffic light procedure was the norm.
Think about it, doesn't that make more sense than sitting there like a dummy wasting time and natural resources when there is no cross traffic?
Not DUMB, just plain common horse sense!
I remember in the winter of 69 in Portland it didn't take very long during that long and horrible snowstorm for people to start planning their arrival at stop signs so they wouldn't need to stop. And another funny thing happened then, I noticed that it become the norm for two to three cars to go through an intersection once they got up and going. Then people, by implicit mutual agreement, stopped trying abide by the "timing" of the stop lights.
is "running" red lights any different than "running" stop signs. Something all of us do every day without even thinking about it.
How does the actual law in your state read?
Of course it says that you must come to a complete stop for a red light, but does it actually say you must remain stopped for the entire duration. Or does it leave it open for you to proceed cautiously and carefully if there is no cross traffic.
And how many of us have even done that already at some time or another?
Since the "state" is clearly willing to trust us to act sensibly when we encounter a stop sign then why should it be any different for stop lights?
But, getting back to topic at hand, why don't you just buy the new 4Runner and be done with the RX. All these criticisms of the RX is getting a bit old. Better yet, get the new GX470...it just won the FourWheeler of the Year award.
If you don't like it, buy something else!! Again, pretty simple concept i am presenting here.
Please don't buy the Runner. I know it would meet your needs in terms of a 4WD system, but I honestly don't want to hear you talk ad nauseum about the DAC or HAC and how they didn't meet your expectations. Further, I don't want to hear about how you can't figure out when to use recirculated air versus fresh and when the AC is supposed to be on. You need a new crusade and I suggest BMW.
You're serious about this red light thing aren't you? If you can't figure the difference between a red light and a stop sign, its no wonder your expectations are all messed up on so many issues.
...but does it actually say you must remain stopped for the entire duration. Or does it leave it open for you to proceed cautiously and carefully if there is no cross traffic.
Yes, you must remain stopped for the entire duration. You may proceed only if the signal is malfunctioning or if directed by a proper authority according to most state laws as I understand it.
I have the Idaho Driver's Manual in front of me and, while it's not the actual code, it states that you must remain stopped until the light changes and cross traffic clears the intersection.
This begs the questions about permitted turns on red, red arrows, flashing reds, etc. But I think we are talking about going forward.
It also says to use chains on very slippery roads :-)
I read the actual Idaho State MV laws once (a long time ago!) and it does say to remain at a full stop, etc. It makes explicit exceptions - those being right turns, faulty equipment (traffic lights) and directions by law enforcement. I don't recall any other exceptions.
We Californians may drive you nuts in See-little but please do me the favor of never coming to California. We have enough idiots running red lights because they are too busy talking on their cell phones to notice. I don't think I can handle another form of idiot that thinks that red lights are just some sort of suggestion to stop if you feel like it.
BTW: No amount of technology will overcome driver stupidity. I had an old 4runner with open front and rear diffs and never got stuck despite years of off-roading and driving to the mountians every time it snowed. Why? Simple: I knew what it could and could not do and I acted appropriately. Rarely, very rarely, that meant chaining up.
Too much technology is making us into a bunch of sheep, IMO. After all, if I have TC, ABS, EDS, EBS, VSC I can still drive like a moron and all that technology will keep me on the road, right? Try not to fall into that trap: your car is not magic and never will be.
My advice: forget the technology. Forget trying to outsmart all that technology and instead focus on your driving skills. Good driving skills will take you a lot further than the perfect AWD system.
Reading all this I have to wonder: Are you trying to compensate for something?
First, I'm not advocading simply driving through a red light.
What I'm suggesting is that if it's okay to come to a full and complete stop at a STOP sign (that ALWAYS says STOP), check for cross traffic and only proceed into the intersection if YOU deem it safe to do so, then why can't the same rules apply to stop lights?
Other than what most state laws say, is there, logically, a difference?
If tomorrow I could buy a new equivalent to my 1992 Jeep Cherokee Limited that's exactly what I would do. Mechanical LSD in the rear, 2WD, AWD, and part-time 4WD.
But time and technology marches on.
I'm 62. I didn't get here without being fully aware of my own capabilities and those of the vehicle I am driving.
That's exactly why I'm reluctant to take an RX out to central Montana in the wintertime. I have made myself well aware of its capabilities AND its limitations.
hicaira, why did you neglect to mention that your "old" 4runner had a locking center diff'l?
"Good driving skills will take you a lot further than a perfect AWD system."
Is that really what you meant to say?
Good driving skills will be perfectly satisfactory unless you need (not want) to go someplace that REQUIRES AWD or 4WD. Or like on the 18th of December 1990 here on the eastside of Seattle when I had to shuttle most of my employees home with our Jeep with chains on all four wheels.
Sometimes adverse weather comes to you, you don't get a choice.
Willard, I think it's better to get the signals connected to the gizmos in the pavement so it knows when someone is at the light and no one is coming. My favorite light here got me for 23 seconds the other day; often it changes as I approach and I get to do a "California stop."
The next big thing, of course, are roundabouts, but I think we're pretty far afield in here as it is, so I'll quit now.
"hicaira, why did you neglect to mention that your "old" 4runner had a locking center diff'l?"
It only locked, automatically, in the low range. Limited use except for deep mud, rock crawling, deep snow, and the like. Useless at 60 MPH running up sandy washes or even at 30mph on a snowy plowed road. And I did not neglect to mention it, I implied it by not mentioning it along with the open diffs. Why does that matter? Still only guarantees torque split between front and rear axles - not to the tire(s) with the most traction. To get that you must add the driver to the equation.
""Good driving skills will take you a lot further than a perfect AWD system."
Is that really what you meant to say?"
Yes, it is. I can take an imperfect open diff AWD system and run rings around a person with a much more "complex" and tecno-laden system who is waiting for his car to do the thinking for him. All it takes is experience, and knowing how to choose the right speed, line, gear, brake acuation, throttle acuation, momentum and, most important of all, knowing how to hold your mouth just right. Failing that, I know how to put the proper tires on my car and they are NOT the ones it came with. Ever.
Instead of griping about your RX go put some Blizzaks on it for the winter months. The difference will astound you, and unlike chains, they won't rattle all your fillings loose at 25 mph and you won't get your plaid jacket and wingtips all muddy installing them on the shoulder of the highway (two sets at that!)
"First, I'm not advocading simply driving through a red light.
What I'm suggesting is that if it's okay to come to a full and complete stop at a STOP sign (that ALWAYS says STOP), check for cross traffic and only proceed into the intersection if YOU deem it safe to do so, then why can't the same rules apply to stop lights?
Other than what most state laws say, is there, logically, a difference?"
YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
If there wasnt a difference, we wouldnt have stop lights. Stop lights are used for situations where it is safer to have a light than a sign.
I cant even express how much truth is contained in Hicairas last post. Especially the tire comment. You complain so much about not being able to put chains on your tires, but you have never tried a good set of snows.
There are some great snow tires out there, some of them perform better than chains in snow. They will not slip on ice unless you want them to, and you will always have grip unless you are driving like a maniac.
Here is another posters experience with Nokian tires. Most vehicles cant even come close to this experience without chains, and here he goes and does it with just snow tires. Post #2339
No, stoplights are for "metering", expediting and regulating the flow of traffic.
One is not inherently any "safer" than the other, they both rely on US for the safety factor.
Don't I remember something about PA authorizing "right turn on red unless otherwise posted" and then the STATE "posting" EVERY intersection in the state.
Comments
Viscous couplings do not use pressure to operate. Simple - think simple. So simple that all it is it two sets of spinning discs in thick fluid. Spin one set, and the thick fluid spins the other. Simple.
IdahoDoug
tidester, host
But you are right on, VC is actually one of the most simple mechanical devices that AWD cars have. There is no complicated pressure or temperature based viscosity relationships to worry about. In fact, viscosity in VCs usually remain pretty constant, and the viscosity change is actually very small, but in fact it is the existing thickness of the fluid that keeps those wheels spinning.
There are some other ways to create different viscosity relationships. One way is do use a gas bubble. When a significant differential of speeds between the halfshaft arrises, that gas bubble gets "whipped" into the thick silicon fluid, much like whipped cream, which increases the viscosity until the gas bubbles nucleate and seperate.
Once again, wwest. There is no temperature dependance in VCs, whether it is a direct temp/viscosity relationship or a temp/pressure relationship. If there were a temp viscosity relationship, everybody would be driving around with locked axles in summer, and driving around with an useless differential in winter. And if there were a temp/pressure relationship, it would be impossible to lock up in winter and the differential casing would explode in summer.
There is no simple, cheap, and efficient mechanical device that can turn mechanical energy into thermal energy. VC plates can only reasonably raise the temperature of the fluid a few degrees in a short time. Ambient temperatures exist in much more extreme ranges than a few degrees. If raising the temperature a few degrees is enough to pressurize the case, then raising it 50° will surely cause the case to bust.
I'll be talking to a few professors tomorrow who specialize in this kind of stuff. If you are unhappy with your coupling time in your RX, there are fluids that you can use to replace that will decrease the time. I am pretty sure you would just need a similar silicon fluid with a higher molecular weight than what you currently have.
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12
stevehaidt, your question has been answered correctly by Intmed and pschreck.
For many months now I have been theorizing that the Chrysler T&C minivan's AWD system is greatly superior to that of the RX and the HL. My theory was based on the fact that the T&C AWD system had a method for uncoupling the two drivelines, front and rear, when the brakes are applied resulting in the need for disparate rotational rates front to rear.
The front brakes do about 80% of the work required to stop the vehicle and in so doing they very often turn very slowly. If that slow rate of rotation were to be coupled to the rear driveline then loss of control would oftentimes be the result.
The T&C has an over-running clutch in the rear driveline for just that purpose, allowing the rear wheels to turn at a higher rate than the front during braking.
But, up until this morning I had no T&C with which to prove out my theory. My daughters 98 is here at the moment.
So I jacked it up so all four wheels were off the ground and repeated the shade-tree mechanic's AWD test that I performed on the 01 AWD RX300.
As it happened I was not able to block the rear wheels from turning in exactly the same manner as the RX. The 98 T&C wheels do not have wide enough openings to insert the light pine 1X2' with the thin dimension to "shear". So in this case the T&C had to shear the 2" dimension if the rear wheels were to turn.
With my foot firmly on the brake and the engine at idle I shifted the transmission into gear and then started releasing the brakes. The right rear 1X2 sheared virtually instantly, at engine idle. To be sure this wasn't a fluke I blocked the right rear with an oak 1X2. The left rear 1X2 sheared virtually the instant I started releasing the brakes.
I repeated the test one more time just as assurance.
The RX300 rear wheels would not shear the thin dimension of the 1X2 even with the engine RPM raised to 2000.
Lexus wants to "Relentless Pursue Perfection", why not give them a little help by pointing out their obvious flaws.
I really would like to buy an RX330 next spring instead of having to seriously consider the X5, XC90, or even a new T&C.
I sell computer clones (legacy processors), Nova, Eclipse, PDP-11, HP1000.
PDP-8 anyone??
Take about stuffing the ballot box... are you kin to Katherine Harris?
BTW, you may be right, i grew up in Florida!
Oh, sorry...
Which problem?
1. The AWD that isn't.
2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue.
3. The useless GPS/nav.
4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display.
5. The horrid mold and mildew odor.
6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield.
7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather.
8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor.
9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages.
Which?
I dare you to start a webpage based petition or class action suit, and see how many follow.
Oh and as far as your little list:
"1. The AWD that isn't."
If this were really a problem, then you should have heard about it before you bought the RX.
"2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue."
You live in a rough area, and you neglected to research this? There are many modern cars that only allow chains on front or rear, for space reasons.
"3. The useless GPS/nav."
If it is so useless, why did you opt for it?
"4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display."
Did you test drive the RX before you bought it???
"5. The horrid mold and mildew odor."
See #4
"6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield."
All cars do this.
"7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather."
How so? Is it hard to find the button?
"8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor."
Huh?
"9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages."
A legitimate claim, and the only one that I have heard stories of that didnt come from you.
If the RX is really that bad, then we would be hearing from many more owners than just you, just like the sludge issue. I havent heard a single owner on these boards complain about half the stuff you complain about. Also, good research when you were buying the RX could have led you away from it. Did you neglect this step in the car buying process?
BTW, isn't "radiant cooling" a contradiction?
The problem: AWD system (that isn't, according to you)
1. The AWD that isn't.
Discussed above
2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue.
As in most vehicles, there are packaging limitations and if that means that you can't use chains at all or only on the front wheels, take that into account when you purchase your vehicle.
3. The useless GPS/nav.
Useless how? It seems to work pretty well on the vehicles I've used it for. You'll have to be a bit more descriptive about this one...
4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display.
Funny how Lexus and Toyota is almost always praised on their ergonomics. This is a subjective issue, however, and one that actually I will agree with you about. I don't like the radio controls being integrated.
5. The horrid mold and mildew odor.
Let me guess, you're using the recirculate botton all of the time. Use fresh air and you won't have this problem.
6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield.
If you have the front defrost on or the mixed front defrost and footwell setting, use the A/C in the on position even if you have the heat on. It dehumidifies the air and will clear up the windows.
7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather.
See above description
8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor.
HUH????
9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages.
Agreed, they should use the front parking lights as the DRL IMO. But I didn't say everything you've said was wrong...
1. The AWD that isn't.
seems to work just fine with 50 50 front rear split
2. The snowchains ONLY on the front safety issue.
This is the prefered location to assist with braking? Why would you want rear chains anyway - according to your tests - 90% of the torque goes to the front anyway
3. The useless GPS/nav.
I don't have a Lexus - but from what I have read - its a great system - maybe your issues are based on operator error?
4. The horrible ergonomics of the Nav display.
See 3 above
5. The horrid mold and mildew odor.
User error - you need to dry the condensor before stopping the fan
6. The propensity to suddenly fog over the interior surface of the windshield.
Use AC and it will clear in an instant
7. The impossibility of using the defog mode successfully in cold weather.
See 6 above
8. The discomfort of cool and dry airflow to one's face and upper body when radiant cooling is a predominant factor.
personal issue
9. The high beam lamps that fail prematurely due to reduced DRL voltages.
???
But keep in mind that this is LEXUS we're talking about.
1. AWD NOT!
When I bought the MY2000 AWD RX I was told that the torque distribution front to rear was 70/30 and I took the salesman's word for that.
He was wrong, the torque split might be 70/30, or even 50/50, as long as the front and rear wheels have roughly equal traction, high or low. But the instant front slippage occurs the open center diff'l will route ALL torque to the driveline with the LEAST resistance.
That's when the VC should come into play, disparate rotational rates front to rear. It obviously doesn't.
So for 2001 Lexus announced that they had added a Trac system equivalent (I think the salesman said "like" the ML)to that of the ML320. If any of you have driven the ML or X5 or XC90 in adverse conditions you will understand my excitement at this news and why I went out and traded up immediately.
But alas, it was not to be. Trac didn't seem to work properly. Lexus then explained to me that were they to use the Trac system to allocate, apportion, engine torque front to rear then the VC would be rendered useless. (SO!!)
Now I can readily understand why Trac would not be used to apportion torque side to side in the front. Understandably LSD was not an option with VSC/Trac. Trac should certain supplant the need for an LSD in the rear. To date I have not encounter ANY circumstance, natural or contrived, under which Trac came into play.
You might find me putting chains only on the front to get from my home out to the public roadbed but never farther.
And yes, I don't doubt that many FWD cars do not have sufficient clearance for rear chains.
But the RX and HL are both marketed as SUVs, anyone in that market should or will KNOW that chains, when used, should always be used on all four wheels.
I think the RX, and the HL, were designated, designed, for their primary market, a Macho looking (soccer-mom") minivan, and therefore the requirement for rear chains was simply over-looked.
Packaging limitations: right now it looks to me as if the front struts will fit the rear and therefore there will be enough clearance.
IdahoDoug
Maybe I should introduce you to the former mayor of Nyssa (Or) and let him show you what can be done with an old green monster jeep and chains on all four.
But the real point is that even with our Jeep Cherokee Limiteds, with the center diff'l locked and LSD, we often had to resort to chains even here within the local Puget sound area.
Of course a lot of that, but not all, had to do with the inexpertise of all the influx of CA drivers in the 89 timeframe. The only way to get around those idiots was through the barrow pit.
And Utah says its all the Californians that are the bad drivers. Like people actually decide to move to Utah from California. Thats pretty funny.
Anyway, to stay on topic, I have never seen a snowy situation where a good set of snow tires were bested by chains. This includes some of the hariest mountain pass roads in California during a snowstorm. Old Priest road, on the way to Yosemite actually has some parts of road where the grade is higher that 17%, and I saw a Land Cruiser with snows take that road with zero problems.
Maybe you like doing the extreme offroading, but if thats the case, buy a Land Rover, not some sissy Lexus based off the camry.
Go figure !
Think about it, doesn't that make more sense than sitting there like a dummy wasting time and natural resources when there is no cross traffic?
Not DUMB, just plain common horse sense!
I remember in the winter of 69 in Portland it didn't take very long during that long and horrible snowstorm for people to start planning their arrival at stop signs so they wouldn't need to stop. And another funny thing happened then, I noticed that it become the norm for two to three cars to go through an intersection once they got up and going. Then people, by implicit mutual agreement, stopped trying abide by the "timing" of the stop lights.
Humans are adaptable, even in the short term.
How does the actual law in your state read?
Of course it says that you must come to a complete stop for a red light, but does it actually say you must remain stopped for the entire duration. Or does it leave it open for you to proceed cautiously and carefully if there is no cross traffic.
And how many of us have even done that already at some time or another?
Since the "state" is clearly willing to trust us to act sensibly when we encounter a stop sign then why should it be any different for stop lights?
If you don't like it, buy something else!! Again, pretty simple concept i am presenting here.
You're serious about this red light thing aren't you? If you can't figure the difference between a red light and a stop sign, its no wonder your expectations are all messed up on so many issues.
Yes, you must remain stopped for the entire duration. You may proceed only if the signal is malfunctioning or if directed by a proper authority according to most state laws as I understand it.
tidester, host
This begs the questions about permitted turns on red, red arrows, flashing reds, etc. But I think we are talking about going forward.
It also says to use chains on very slippery roads :-)
Steve, Host
tidester, host
Of course if the person that doesn't see you is coming in the opposite direction, it doesn't really matter if you have AWD or Sears AWD.
In PA we have right turn on red. Which seems to mean, slow down and glance to the left, if you think you can make it , GO.
BTW: No amount of technology will overcome driver stupidity. I had an old 4runner with open front and rear diffs and never got stuck despite years of off-roading and driving to the mountians every time it snowed. Why? Simple: I knew what it could and could not do and I acted appropriately. Rarely, very rarely, that meant chaining up.
Too much technology is making us into a bunch of sheep, IMO. After all, if I have TC, ABS, EDS, EBS, VSC I can still drive like a moron and all that technology will keep me on the road, right? Try not to fall into that trap: your car is not magic and never will be.
My advice: forget the technology. Forget trying to outsmart all that technology and instead focus on your driving skills. Good driving skills will take you a lot further than the perfect AWD system.
Reading all this I have to wonder: Are you trying to compensate for something?
HiC
First, I'm not advocading simply driving through a red light.
What I'm suggesting is that if it's okay to come to a full and complete stop at a STOP sign (that ALWAYS says STOP), check for cross traffic and only proceed into the intersection if YOU deem it safe to do so, then why can't the same rules apply to stop lights?
Other than what most state laws say, is there, logically, a difference?
But time and technology marches on.
I'm 62. I didn't get here without being fully aware of my own capabilities and those of the vehicle I am driving.
That's exactly why I'm reluctant to take an RX out to central Montana in the wintertime. I have made myself well aware of its capabilities AND its limitations.
hicaira, why did you neglect to mention that your "old" 4runner had a locking center diff'l?
"Good driving skills will take you a lot further than a perfect AWD system."
Is that really what you meant to say?
Good driving skills will be perfectly satisfactory unless you need (not want) to go someplace that REQUIRES AWD or 4WD. Or like on the 18th of December 1990 here on the eastside of Seattle when I had to shuttle most of my employees home with our Jeep with chains on all four wheels.
Sometimes adverse weather comes to you, you don't get a choice.
The next big thing, of course, are roundabouts, but I think we're pretty far afield in here as it is, so I'll quit now.
Steve, Host
It only locked, automatically, in the low range. Limited use except for deep mud, rock crawling, deep snow, and the like. Useless at 60 MPH running up sandy washes or even at 30mph on a snowy plowed road. And I did not neglect to mention it, I implied it by not mentioning it along with the open diffs. Why does that matter? Still only guarantees torque split between front and rear axles - not to the tire(s) with the most traction. To get that you must add the driver to the equation.
""Good driving skills will take you a lot further than a perfect AWD system."
Is that really what you meant to say?"
Yes, it is. I can take an imperfect open diff AWD system and run rings around a person with a much more "complex" and tecno-laden system who is waiting for his car to do the thinking for him. All it takes is experience, and knowing how to choose the right speed, line, gear, brake acuation, throttle acuation, momentum and, most important of all, knowing how to hold your mouth just right. Failing that, I know how to put the proper tires on my car and they are NOT the ones it came with. Ever.
Instead of griping about your RX go put some Blizzaks on it for the winter months. The difference will astound you, and unlike chains, they won't rattle all your fillings loose at 25 mph and you won't get your plaid jacket and wingtips all muddy installing them on the shoulder of the highway (two sets at that!)
HiC
What I'm suggesting is that if it's okay to come to a full and complete stop at a STOP sign (that ALWAYS says STOP), check for cross traffic and only proceed into the intersection if YOU deem it safe to do so, then why can't the same rules apply to stop lights?
Other than what most state laws say, is there, logically, a difference?"
YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
If there wasnt a difference, we wouldnt have stop lights. Stop lights are used for situations where it is safer to have a light than a sign.
There are some great snow tires out there, some of them perform better than chains in snow. They will not slip on ice unless you want them to, and you will always have grip unless you are driving like a maniac.
nanuq "Land Rover Discovery/Discovery II" Nov 13, 2002 11:42pm
No, stoplights are for "metering", expediting and regulating the flow of traffic.
One is not inherently any "safer" than the other, they both rely on US for the safety factor.
Don't I remember something about PA authorizing "right turn on red unless otherwise posted" and then the STATE "posting" EVERY intersection in the state.