By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It really sucks that compared to most other states, californians get stuck with paying higher fuel costs, registrations fees, sales tax, etc. Btw, many CA dealerships were open up until midnight last night, so buyers can take advantage of not paying the triple fees. Come to think of it, though, maybe better discounts will be given now that lexus may be hurting for business since the tripling of fees may be keeping potential buyers away.
tedcruiser
And that pales in comparison with a $40 BILLION deficit which the recall may fix - a prudent investment - but we should really stick to the topic! :-)
tidester, host
The RX seems to turn faster than the MDX. The steering is "lighter". It feels more "nimble". Maybe the MDX's "clumsiness" in this area is due to the fact that it is taller, wider and longer (the driver sits noticeably higher as well). Still, if I go 50mph and change lanes and back very quickly, the RX remains composed and quickly enters and exits each lane. The MDX is less comforting. It seems to stay in the lanes longer. If I slow the MDX to between 40 and 45mph, it feels more like the RX did at 50mph. Maybe this is due, in part, to the fact the the MDX is taller, wider and longer than the RX. The driver also sits higher. All this makes it feel less "nimble".
Having said all this, the MDX's steering is better weighted and provides more feel and control during normal driving (within the vehicles limits). So while a Ford Focus might travel faster down a twisting mountain road, a 5-series BMW will feel better.
I guess it would be more fair to compare cars that are more similar - a Focus is much smaller than a 5-series and the RX is noticeably smaller than the MDX. Still, I think the RX's "nimbleness" is more impressive than the MDX - even if the road feel is slightly worse.
....And your right. The brakes are more responsive in the RX. The RX stops much more confidently and I rarely overshoot the threshold of the intersection like I do in the MDX.
Every few nights, I take my 2-year-old son on a ride so he will fall asleep. After stopping by bmwbob27's to trade stories about cold-air and counter-intuitive moonroof controls (not to mention the fact that we're the only RX owners in Sonoma County who are male), I cruise on the freeway a few exits then return home. Some nights I'll take the RX and others the MDX - I let my son choose. Both vehicles cruise so nicely that you often don't realize how fast you are going. I often fail to slow down enough for the freeway offramp and am forced to apply more brake pressure to come to a stop before the intersection. I often overshoot threshold in the MDX, but not in the RX. I have gone so far as to duplicate my exit "trajectory" in both vehicles and the RX always stops better. I realize that this test is less scientific than my other tests which involve stopwatches and real measurements. But I am confident that I am not lying when I purport that the RX out brakes the MDX in a noticeable way.
....As for Car and Driver, all I can say is that I never have been able to get anything close to their numbers - even with an automatic transmission. For that matter, I looked up 0-60 times on several websites. The only ones that are close to mine are on the website for a leading consumer magazine. They got 8.2 seconds for the MDX; I got 8.3. They got 8.8 seconds for the RX (AWD); I got 8.6 seconds for the RX (FWD). And here's the kicker. The consumer magazine was the only website that actually buys cars at the dealerships like you an me. All the other cars were supplied by the manufacturer. Many, before vehicles were available to the public. In fact, the Lexus brochure says they got there times with professional drivers and prototype vehicles. I used to think that I could use Car and Driver's numbers for relative comparisons - even if my times were slightly worse. I have learn that that is not the case. Car and Driver's numbers can be opposite of what you and I can do in the production vehicles (relatively speaking). That's why I dismiss them entirely. I must admit, though, that C&D's braking numbers look good. Bot C&D and the leading consumer magazine got about 12% shorter stops in the RX than they did with the MDX. Maybe it's harder to rig the breaks on those "prototype" vehicles - or maybe the manufacturers don't care as much about those numbers.
I really think that Lexus really wanted the RX to accelerate better (because that was on of the biggest complaints about the dated RX300) and Toyota just couldn't do it. So Lexus marketing just hyped and exaggerated a little more than companies usually do.
The RX is still a great car. It's just not the speed demon they want you to think it is. It's really more like the old RX300 in that respect.
They also will tell you that they extract the best possible time for each model that they test. On automatic and AWD-equipped cars like the RX, this means employing a technique that you and I would never do to our own vehicles - giving it plenty of gas with our left foot on the brake, and then letting it go. On cars that develop too much wheelspin to hurt performance, this means less throttle. For this reason their 5-60 mph test is probably a better measure of real-world performance. You are already moving slightly and then mash the gas pedal. But the 0-60 and quarter mile times are achieved using the best possible technique on each car they test. I don't think Consumer Reports would ever do this, so in the reports that I've seen their times are always slower than those achieved by C&D. It's not the fact that C&D are given perfectly prepared, super-fast examples of cars, whereas Consumer Reports just buys them off the lot. If this were true, C&D wouldn't find much in the way of rattles and other manufacturing defects that they often do. And oftentimes they buy a car for a long-term evaluation, and the car is a little faster after 20,000 or 30,000 miles than it was when brand new (not too often, but this happens sometimes).
So I do not believe that they fudge the tests in any way. This is one magazine that is very critical of models that they don't care for, and even critical of certain features of models that they do care for. This and their often humerous writing style is mainly why I've liked it and have been a paid subscriber for so many years. Like anything else, you don't believe everything you read as if it were the Gospel, but it's about as consistently honest as I've found for printed car mags.
P.S. They are not big fans of SUV's generally, but I still bought an RX330 and a FX45, so I don't always follow their recommendations! <g>
I remember Road and Track testing Bugatti EB110 (AWD) by running the RPM upto 7000 and dumping the clutch, because the thing would not spin the tires at lower RPMs.
Consumer Reports on the other hand, seems to test the way average Joe would drive their cars. So I tend to rely on their numbers for more realistic data.
Best is to see it by yourself to make sure. Also, checkout the transmission during test drive at 25 mph range. It's not smooth like previous 4 speed auto train on the RX300 (awd). It (awd) "clunk" "thug" and "lag" when down shifting, specially at 25 mph. Not sure the fwd have this problem.
The most direct speed comparison between the RX330, MDX, FX35, etc. can be found in the recent Consumer Reports article. All the vehicles were tested under similar conditions so I'd go with those numbers over individually tested numbers from C&D. CR tends to run acceleration tests more conservatively than C&D, Thus they post slower times, but the deltas are pretty accurate.
Hey Jim,
> Yah, I have been busy latley with the launch of the
> refreshed LS430.
> We were in Seattle last week and they showed off the
> 2005 GS. Let's just
> say it will be well worth the wait. That is one
> nice assss car.
> Very well thought out, There will be an AWD
> version, not sure if the V6 or
> the V8 gets it.
> I have not heard any news of a hybrid
> Sequoia/Tundra. But as time goes by
> Toyota/Lexus will introduce hybrids into more and
> more of the models.
> So what's new with you???"
I emailed him with lots of questons and this was his reply:
"Hey Jim,
That pic you sent
http://www.autofiend.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&a- mp;a- mp;sid=96
is indeed a doctored up HPX. Doesn't look anything
like
the new GS. The new GS is lower and longer. I don't know about power
output or performance. I do know the base eng will be a V6. What
struct
me the most is how clean the car is styled and the interior of the
vehicle
as well. I would say the best looking Lexus or Toyota yet. Doesn't look
like anything esle that Lexus or Toyota has come out with. Nice set of
wheels as well. Lets just say I can't wait to get mine!!
The hybrid RX was there as well. That has some performance as well.
Faster that a BMW X5 V8 and gets 36mpg in the city."
Hopefully some pic's may surface now that the car is in the US.
But now back to the subject at hand.
Most dealers (I think) including my own also do not charge for the 5,000 service. This may even be a Lexus policy, I'm not sure. At this service they do change the oil. The real question in your situation is should you wait until then to get your first oil change, as it may be a whole year before you reach 5,000 miles. I would ask your service advisor about that as well. If it were me I would have it changed at least every 6 months, regardless of the mileage, but that's just me.
Absent harsh or rough duty use Lexus recommends the first service at 7500 miles.
- Driving in temperatures above 100 degrees F.
- Driving in temperatures below 30 degrees F.
(Note: Isn't it amazing that the Lexus mainframe uses Fahrenheit instead of Celsius for units of temperature measurement?)
- Taking short trips of less than 10 minutes duration.
- Driving in any stop-and-go traffic.
- Allowing the engine to reach 4500rpm or greater.
- Taking the car off pavement.
- Eating a Big Mac while driving.
- Driving with more than 1 child under the age of 24.
- Remembering the ol' Toyota/Lexus 3.0 Liter V6 engine oil sludge controversy.
- Driving while talking on the cell phone!
OK, I admit that I made up that last item. Sorry, but some of that cell phone usage is a pet peeve of mine.
Now, how many of us can look our service advisors straight in the eye and honestly say that we never drive under any "harsh" conditions?
I doubt it means if you "ever" drive in traffic and stop at a red light or if you drove the vehicle for 3 hours while the temperature dipped to 29 degrees, you now are driving in "harsh" conditions.
Lexus probably should have sensors like BMW and Mercedes that analyze your driving and the oil as you drive and have a maintenance light that comes on at a custom interval rather than having a set schedule.
As for the previous Toyotas with sludge problems: They were defective engines. The solution was not more frequent oil changes any more than adding oil to a leaking engine is the "solution."
When I attended a Lexus driving event in Northern Virginia, three separate courses were set up for the RX, GX and LX (and their competitors.) The RX course was entirely on pavement and smooth dirt roads. The GX and LX had "off-road" courses that had been built by moving earth around in a parking lot. Though they were only 300 yards or so long, the "off-road" courses, which were slightly more extreme for the LX and its competitors, included some railroad ties to drive over, a 30 degree sidehill and some mini 6 ft hills with staggered peaks so you could drive with 1 or 2 wheels in the air.
The RX's competitors included the X5 3.0 and the ML 350. The GX and LX's competitors included the X5 4.4 and the ML 500. Net result was that drivers got to take the same basic MB and BMW products on both the onroad and offroad courses (albeit with different engines). And, although it was very short and artificial, both the MB an BMW performed just fine on the off-road course.
When I asked an event staffer whether we could drive the RX 330 over the off-road course, she said no. When I asked why, she said that few RX buyers ever go offroad and that that capability isn't a critical selling point. When told her I was looking at the RX and GX and wondered how the RX would do off-road, she said that early in the morning, they'd brought an RX out to the off-road track, because as car enthusiasts themselves, they were eager to see how it would do. The RX, she said, got 'stuck.'
For 95% of the driving I do, on road, I'd rather have an RX than a GX. But I'd like to know that if I drive on the beach or on a moderately difficult forest road, my RX won't be getting stuck far from help when a GX, X5 or ML could have easily passed.
Please share your experiences taking RX's offroad or let me know where you've read reviews that have taken RX's off pavement. Thanks.
Willard is way off the mark on his FWD rants though :-)
Steve, Host
The RX330 has the potential to be a lot better were it not for the 45 second ABS pump/motor protection timeout.
Anyone else sense that problem?
Seriously, I've noticed that it could have a better on-center feel, but on the occasions that I've driven it I didn't have any problem keeping it in my lane, even with just light pressure on the wheel.
I agree. Less frequent oil changes (such as 7500-mile+ intervals) should never have caused those problems. But what you and I believe to be true isn't always what the service center or the car manufacturer believes to be true. For the first few Toyota/Lexus owners to experience this problem, how much time, effort, and cost were expended before Toyota admitted the engine was fully to blame?
"Lexus probably should have sensors like BMW and Mercedes that analyze your driving and the oil as you drive and have a maintenance light that comes on at a custom interval..."
I would agree if they truly perform a good analysis of all your driving conditions. In my opinion, there's not a great deal of analysis involved with the BMW maintenance indicators. For example, I've had both a BMW E39 5-series and an E46 3-series sedan. Harsh stop-and-go driving seems to result in a custom interval of, say, 13K miles, while I've actually experienced an interval of 17K miles for mostly light freeway driving. Yes, that is with synthetic; but isn't it amazing how much longer the oil change intervals are when the manufacturer provides the maintenance for free? I prefer to be my own judge.
Any answers from people who know the real facts of this issue would be appreciated.