Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Lexus RX 330

I have read several articles and have several pics of the new RX330. I was wondering if anyone had any price estimates for the options / packages? Also, if lexus plans on a "special edition" RX330 - such as a coach edition. I have an RX300 silversport edition now.


  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    The final tally of the "Should we have a separate RX330 discussion?" was:

    Aye: 26
    Nay: 17
    Abstentions: 1,499,957 ;-)

    tidester, host
  • I am eagerly awaiting the RX330. We need a replacement for our recently decreased '94 Mercury Villager. The Toyota Sienna XLE Limited is our most likely choice. However, Southeast Toyota will not include any XLE Limiteds in its initial allocation.

    We desire the luxury of the Lexus. However, my wife needs a wheelchair/scooter hoist. Our current scooter and wheelchair require 40" of rear-opening height. We will be at the Lexus dealer with our tape measure as soon as the vehicle arrives. However, it is very doubtful that the RX330 will be sufficiently tall. :-(

    I regret that Lexus does not build a minivan. It is my belief that some of the Lexus XUV buyers would actually opt for a luxury minivan. Such a van does not exist! Many believe that the upcoming Grand Sport Tourers (e.g. the Mercedes Vision concept vehicle) will fill this niche. Such vehicles are likely not going to be tall enough for us.

    I guess that we are doomed to drive NICE minivans.
  • to this direct site. Much more intuitive too. Now we just need some of those 330 test results to get things warmed up!
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Is there an anticipated significant price increase for the RX330 over a comparably-equipped '03 RX300? Does anyone know?
  • lenscaplenscap Posts: 854
    There will not be a significant price increase for the new model. Expect a base model to be $35,000 with options adding to that. A fully-loaded version will be around $45,000, and that will include features not even offered on the 2003.
  • Thought this web site could answer some questions

    Also, printed specs on the new RX330 are;

    Overall length 186.2 in
    Overall width 72.6 in
    Overall height 66.1 in (unloaded)
    Cargo Capacity 38.3 cubic feet (rear seats forwrd) 84.7 cubic feet (rear seats folded)
  • when will RX330 hit the showroom in US?
  • From everything I have read.
  • Will RX330 have a 3rd row seat option in Nov this year (from a messege posted here)? Can anyone give more insight to it? I love everything I read about RX330 except missing the 3rd row seat. If there is no hope at all, I may have to think other options.
  • Actually everything I have read as well, there is no mention of 3rd row seating.

    In fact - the spare tire (which is currently located under the floor mat in the back is being moved to underneath the vehicle as most SUV's seem to have already, and there will be storage compartments with flip up doors to store items in.

    I haven't even seen this as an option either.
  • lenscaplenscap Posts: 854
    There will be no 3rd row. Lexus purposely did not want a 3rd row of seats because that says "mom with kids" rather than "luxury vehicle."

    If you want room for the kids than you are not the target Lexus is after with this vehicle.

    One of the criticisms of the RX 300 was that it was attracting too many female buyers. Lexus wanted to "toughen up" the RX 330's image and make it appeal more to men, yet another reason not to offer a 3rd row.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    One of the criticisms of the RX 300 was that it was attracting too many female buyers. Lexus wanted to "toughen up" the RX 330's image and make it appeal more to men, yet another reason not to offer a 3rd row.

    If that is what Lexus is saying as the reason not to have a third row, I think that it's just marketing spin.

    The current RX300 doesn't have a third row, and it attracts "too many" female buyers. So leaving a third row doesn't subtract those female buyers, or add male buyers.

    The vehicle's styling update does not make it "macho" looking, IMHO, so Lexus hasn't done much there either. The sportier performance may help somewhat. But a lot of the improvements are squarely aimed at a more female audience -- upgraded interior materials, better ergonomics, knee air bag for the driver, automatic retracting cargo cover, DVD entertainment system for the kiddies, power liftgate, etc.

    While it can be argued that the air suspension is for the boys, the "Access" mode to help with people climbing into the vehicle is 100% soccer mom.

    Lexus isn't going to mess around with the formula that works. It'll refine it somewhat to try to improve sales among men. But that's not why the third row isn't there.

    It'll be an outstanding seller, I think.
  • I considered the 300 when I was in the market in '01 but it didn't look masculine enough for me so went with the Highlander instead (used the 10K savings to two-tone the exterior, add a dark carpet to the interior and enhance the sound system). If I were in the market when the 330 came out (which I won't be as I plan to keep the Highlander for 10 years minimum), would probably opt for the 330 as it looks more masculine IMO.
  • I spoke to my mechanic who used to work at Lexus and he told me that most of them at the service department think that the dashboard of the RX300 is like a woman's closet vanity/dresser.Also when my sister ordered the car back in 98/99, there were 162 women out of the 200 people in the waiting list.I had driven her car many many times and I like the ride and I don't even think about the macho image because I saw many RX down the road being driven by men.Will I buy it? No, I won't.It is maybe, because I was pampered of driving their V8. Aside from that I have no other negative issue about the usefullness of the RX300 as designed. I tried driving the new GX470 last December as well as the new LX470. I think that the ride of the LX is more softer than the GX in the comfort mode.The same comment I've got from my wife, my sister and brother-in-law. The GX design is nice but I dont like the 3rd row set because it is not spacious at all.The amenities are outstanding but the side sway back openning is disgusting.Overall, it is first class! The cabin is tight for my needs therefore, am looking forward to the redesign LX470/500 in
    th near future.The new Rx330 looks nice too and they throw in lots of amenities. But I already focus myself on the big beast (the LX470)
  • lenscaplenscap Posts: 854
    I guess it's just opinion, but I think the RX 330 is far more masculine looking than the RX 300. I saw it up close at the dealer and it is far more substantial. But again, that's just opinion.

    Also, the new featues you mentioned are welcome by men and women alike. Whether you're a man or women, who wouldn't want upgraded materials, knee airbag, power liftgate, etc.? The RX 300 has a spot for a that's for women.

    Also, toughening the image was not the only reason there is no 3rd seat. It's just one reason, perhaps even a small one. You said it best...Lexus does not want to mess with success.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Yes, I think both men and woman will welcome the new features. But I think that many of the new features are designed to appeal to women more than men. E.g. the power liftgate, the Access mode, safety features like the knee airbag. Surveys show that women place more emphasis on safety features than men. Usually it's women who worry about climbing into SUV's, etc.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    The Chrysler Town & Country is an excellent choice!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    is showing, I guess...

    The RX330 is an RX300 with morphing toward the station wagon of old. Just fine with me. Looks like the FX is going the same route.

    It would be really nice if Lexus were to build a minivan, but Infiniti might just get there first and best. Infiniti obviously knows FWD or FWD torque bias is hazardous.

    Wish the FX had the RX330 looks.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Infiniti doesn't make the FX to be rear-wheel biased because of the so-called, allegedly "hazardous" nature of FWD-biased AWD. They do it because that vehicle is aimed at an unusual target of sporty handling, so RWD is preferred. In fact, the non-AWD version of the FX is RWD, to preserve that sporty character.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I say less hazardous....

  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    I'm not "saying" sporty. It IS sporty. A vehicle available with 20" wheels, 315 horsepower, that unmistakable styling, and purely rear-wheel drive is aimed at the sporty-handling market. Quite obvious, is it not?

    Infiniti's intention in making the AWD rear-biased was not to make it less "hazardous," as presumptuously implied in a previous post with the usual lack of supporting evidence. Infiniti simply wants the vehicle to have a sporty handling character that is consistent with the vehicle's aims. Not to mention that the FX is based on the RWD FM platform that is the progenitor of the high-performance, RWD G35 and Z.

    If you disagree, please provide a web site / auto journal quote from an Infiniti exec, stating that hazardous FWD-biased AWD is the reason they designed the FX's AWD to be RWD-biased. Thank you.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I'm not saying the FX isn't "sporty", or wasn't primarily designed for that aspect, but I would bet some consideration was given to the fact FWD is less safe. After all, "sporty or no, this vehicle is being marketed to the SUV crowd, a crowd which in general, would expect "extra" performance in adverse roadbed conditions.

    Something FWD, or FWD torque biased AWD SUVs cannot match.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    "... I would bet ..."

    I am intrigued. Have there been any published comments from Infiniti, or from autojournalists, that support that assertion? If not, then I'm afraid that's purely personal (and unreliable) conjecture.

    Interesting how "hazardous" has now been rephrased as "less safe."

    Nissan's Murano is an "SUV" available in pure FWD or FWD-biased AWD, and is "marketed to the SUV crowd, a crowd which in general, would expect 'extra' performance in adverse roadbed conditions." Thus Nissan obviously doesn't believe that FWD-biased AWD is "hazardous." They do clearly believe that RWD-biased AWD enhances sporty performance, hence its inclusion in the FX35/FX45.

    Would there be anything concrete to back up the previous assertion, other than personal opinion? I'd love to see it, it'd be very enlightening. Thank you.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    And back to the originally scheduled topic ...

    Any new updates on RX330 pricing, especially the packages? It's nice if they can hold the base prices down, but I wonder how much of the "goodies" will be in more expensive packages?

    Anyone know when final pricing will be released?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    If you would bother to have a look at either a Toyota Highlander of an RX300 owners manual you will find wording to the effect...

    2001 HL page 259 middle column:

    "Installing snow tires on the front wheels only can lead to an excessive difference in road grip capability between the front and rear tires, which could cause loss of vehicle control"

    Exact same wording is on the right column, page 283, of the 2001 RX300
    owners manual.

    Other than lower manufacturing costs one of the advantages of front engine FWD is the fact that the engine weight lends itself to better traction. So most FWD vehicles start out with a "less safe" driving circumstance, especially so in low traction conditions.

    Anything you do to further exacerbate that FWD F/R traction differential simply brings you further into the realm of more hazardous vehicle operation.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    That's quite a leap you've made there, as the two references you have cited simply say don't improperly use snow tires on the vehicles. And not to go beyond the original FWD-biased designs of those vehicles. Nowhere does it say that the vehicles' FWD-biased AWD, properly tired, is hazardous.

    Please remember that your original comment was "hazardous," and not "less safe." There is a substantial difference between the two.

    Regardless, going back to the original point, the post above does not demonstrate that Infiniti "knows" that FWD-biased AWD is "hazardous." And thus influenced their decision to put RWD-biased AWD in the FX35/FX45. Again, please cite credible sources to corroborate your claim, rather than just reapplying personal interpretation. Thank you.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    If you believe or not?


    I write these posts for those that can make logical connections, not for those that want absolute proof.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Please calm down and don't take it personally. When one posts ideas, one has to occasionally expect challenges to those ideas. Especially when the ideas are not backed with semblance of proof. It doesn't even have to be absolute proof. Is it that difficult to find that proof?

    Some rather indicting statements were made, and thus information from credible, third-party sources was requested. Thus far none has been supplied.

    What are called "logical connections" are not "logical" in this case. The connections cited so far are simply subjective interpretations tailored to support the conclusion from the same source. Possibly accurate, or possibly for the purpose of advancing a subjective agenda/bias. To demonstrate the former, it's important to have some level of proof before making such sweeping, indicting statements.

    Else it's just simply personal belief without a verified basis in fact. Potential misinformation, innuendo, etc.

    "... I write these posts for those that can make logical connections, not for those that want absolute proof."

    Based on the leaping "logical connections" currently portrayed, the parallel for this is the difference of philosophy between the National Enquirer and the New York Times.

    Thank you.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I have very little doubt that any automotive engineer involved in the design of an "SUV" would be well aware of the hazards of FWD or FWD torque biased SUV drivelines.

    Now, if you can't make a logical connection between the statements in the RX and HL owners manuals, and lots of readily availabel information on the web, then I consider that to be YOUR personal, individual, problem.

    I really don't see how I can be of any help in that case.

    But think of it this way...

    One of these days we will have an AWD system available that will reduce the driving (or even "lagging") engine torque to the front wheels as the VSC ECU detects that the front wheel's "side loading" is increasing.

    In a panic braking circumstance some "VSC" systems will already reduce the braking HP to the front wheels in an understeering circumstance to allow more of their traction to be used where it is (presumably) needed most.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    One more time before I give up trying ...

    I have very little doubt that any automotive engineer involved in the design of an "SUV" would be well aware of the hazards of FWD or FWD torque biased SUV drivelines.

    Let's say you are correct. Since there are so many SUV's, there must be a lot of automotive engineers involved in the design. Thus there must be many automotive engineers aware of the hazards of FWD or FWD torque biased SUV drivelines. And since there are so many engineers, there must be ample documentation on the hazards.

    The documentation you cited did show a hazardous condition, but it was based on improper customer use of a vehicle. And not on the natural state of the vehicle.

    Whereas the comments you've made simply say that FWD/FWD-biased AWD is hazardous, without such qualifications. Thus, can you please provide credible, third-party statements that say that FWD/FWD-biased AWD is hazardous?
Sign In or Register to comment.