Both on this board, as well as some others, the MCT is overwhelmingly referred to as "the" RX replacement tire, and what I am suggesting is that if you do more homework, you will find other excellent alternatives. And the Bridgestone Dueler HL is one of them.
In my opinion a fair amount of our purchasing dollar goes to pay for Michelin advertising, and while they make a very good tire, it is overrated due, in part, to the hype that I see perpetuated here. People are buying the child protection ads (gag me out) and the Michelin dough boy...the name... believing they are getting the best product out there---and it isn't. At best, all tire models are tradeoffs of many attributes.
I spent a fair amount of time in an RX with MCT tires and liked them much more than the stock Goodyears. After I did some research I found that the Dueler HL, All Season, UNT-T AQ, was a better tire than the MCT...for me. Bridgestone does a much better job of manufacturing tires than they do of marketing them. That seems to be a Michelin strong point. The Dueler HL has been a quiet, sporty, comfortable tire with excellent wet and dry traction, and after 10,000 miles, little wear.
Where Bridgestone has dropped the ball is by continuing the Dueler name with this relatively new SUV tire, and thus confusing the marketplace, TireRack postings, and people on many other Boards, including Edmunds. The Bridgestone Dueler HL is a completely different, and far superior, tire than the Dueler HT, or the Dueler AT, or the winter Dueler DM-Z2.
Enough already. I just wanted people looking for tires to know that the MCT is not the only alternative, or even the best alternative. And no, I have no stock in Bridgestone, don't own a tire store, or have any motivation other than giving folks the benefit of my experience. YMMV.
No I did not use spacers to get the wheel to mount properly. What did was spend too much time trying to find a wheel that would fit.
To save everyone else the 3 month headache I went through, here is the dealio.
Every after-market wheel maker says they have fitments for the 300. The problem is they are basing the fit on the 40mm offset of the standard wheel. This wheel is 6.5 inches wide and takes a 225 tire. If you go up plus 2 sizes, the correct tire to keep things within spec is the 255x55x18. The problem is, with a 40mm offset you will never clear the back strut without spacers. I personally do not like spacers. When you ask about upgrades, ask the manufacturer if they have fitted the wheels with the 255x55x18 and most of them will say no. They recommend a tire that fits the wheel,not the vehicle.
If you want to upgrade look for something in the 18-24mm offset range. The 18 will stick out a bit but, you will not look like the latest hip-hop star. Plus it gives it such a good look. Hope this helps.
Fantom--your comments about the Dueler HL are interesting and might tempt me to try them next time but I have to tell ya that after driving from Maine to Fl and all over the East Coast (25,000 miles on 02 RX-300) I have been extremely pleased with my Dueler HTs. Lots of rubber left. Of course as a 68 year old I don't leave a lot of rubber on the road as I take off but I do drive fairly aggressively.
Like the MCT, the Bridgestone Dueler HL is a new design for car based SUVs, but is somewhat more performance oriented than the MCT...and you'll most likely get a better deal on them.
Sounds like your really enjoying your RX, trmga. 25,000 miles in less than a year is impressive. BTW, while I don't know it for a fact, I've heard that the Duelers, and the MCTs for that matter, are not the greatest in snow. I'm in Flordia so wet traction is important while snow is a non issue.
At ANY age, leaving rubber in an RX-300 would be a real trick ;-)
Don't you think the Jeep Grand Cherokee with Quadra-Drive is a better alternative than the T&C? It is an SUV, after all.
"...Quadra-Drive is a true "4-wheel drive" system. All four wheels are capable of driving the vehicle. Not only do you get the benefit of front-to-rear torque transfer, but side-to-side as well, resulting in the ability to keep the vehicle moving even when only one wheel has traction. It's what makes Grand Cherokee the most capable Jeep vehicle ever."
If I were going off-roading, or if the occassions I expect to need 4Wd were much more often, I would certainly (re)consider the JGC or the liberty.
We drove two Jeeps, an 85 Cherokee Limited and a 92 Cherokee Limited, very pleased with both. The problem was that when we looked at the JGC (our Jeep "box" was being discontinued) we both came away somewhat disappointed, something about the overall look, bulked up outside but without the appropriate level of space inside (reminded us too much of the Explorer and Expedition).
The T&C is quite sharp in the looks department, certainly has enough interior space, and is something I would be embarrassed about picking up foreign visiters at the airport in.
And yes, it would be really nice if Chrysler would put Lexus class intrumentation, electronics, etc. in the T&C, but in the meantime I'll manage with my RX300 and with the Ford Aerostar at the "ready" if need be.
Been seriously thinking about buying an HL viscous clutch and filling it with REAL viscous fluid and no "bubble" and installing it in my RX but I'd probably have to disable the ABS, or maybe just let the front ABS argue with the rear if need be.
NOTE OF CAUTION:
Please don't consider the above VC swap/upgrade idea as any level of reasonable suggestion. A HARD VC coupling between the front driveline and the rear in the RX or HL during severe braking could very easily lead to loss of control of the vehicle due to inadvertant "locking" of the rear wheels/brakes.
That's the reason the T&C has an over-running clutch in the rear driveline, to uncouple the front and rear drivelines during moderate to severe braking efforts.
...and does anyone doubt - for a moment - that Chrysler's engineering, manufacturing, selection of materials, quality control, dealer service support level, factory/zone office support level, sales representatives, etc. are far superior to that of Lexus?
OK, maybe not superior...but at least equal?
WW, glad you've had good luck with your T&C.
There are hundreds of thousands of us ex-Chrylser owners that will make sure that company not only NEVER sees another dime of our automobile-related money...but will also pass that bit of advice to offspring, relatives, neighbors, and internet bulletin boards.
And it's not just because our minivan had a few problems - I'd had a few problems with GM and Ford domestic vehicles as well yet I'd still buy another one from those companies if they met my needs.
It was the total lack of customer support, from the CEO at HQ to the zone office to the dealer to the service writers - that made it our One & Only Chrylser.
As I drive along in my RX I hear an intermittant noise that sounds like air coming into or out of the car. This is a very low level sound and seems to be coming from the vicinity of the top of the driver's door and just behind my left ear. Seems to be there whether the AC is on or off and whether the air is set to recirclate or exhaust. Anyone else experience this or have any idea what this might be. C'mon Willard, help me on this one. Thanks.
Count me in as a owner of Dueler HTs and a satisfied one at that. I have them on one of my RX AWD models and have been very pleased with the performance. Another benefit of the Dueler HTs over the Michelins is the price.
Why would you recommend the X5 first, and the ML second? The X5's 38/62 system causes it to be a lot more tailhappy (requiring the stability control to step in a lot more frequently) than the neutral 48/52 split of the ML, not to mention that the X5 doesn't have low range which is useful for plowing through deep snow.
Of the three T&C AWD minivans in the family over the past five years (two still here) the only failure was a thermostatic switch that ran the radiator cooling fan(s) above a certain temperature.
And I have never questioned that the RX300 is a much better, more reliable vehicle, overall, than the T&C, just making the point that if your priorities tilt toward AWD, the T&C has an AWD system that is far superior to the one in the RX.
Air flow noise:
Remove, or move, the rooftop carrier crossbar luggage racks.
The X5 is in first place because, as you indicate, the engine torque bias is predominantly toward the rear. And sure, that will make the rear more "tailhappy", but only if you're over-driving for the conditions at hand.
In low traction conditions (snow, ice, etc) allocating the front tire's "contact patch" (roadbed adhesion) predominantly to directional control and the rear to driving or "dragging" forces is a lot more desireable than asking the front tires to do both.
My requirements, as I believe are most others, are not for off-road, so a low range gear box is totally useless.
I don't think that I agree completely. Based on my own real world experiences (as well as track experiences) with the X5/330xi's system compared to the ML's as well as the Audi A4 Quattro's, you don't have to overdrive the vehicle in order to get it to be tailhappy. Make a turn uphill on a packed snow covered surfaces and it is very possible for the rear end to step out. I've found that in those low traction conditions, the RWD biased AWD system caused the stabillity control to step in a more frequently, especially on ice, than with the more neutral 50/50 split. Additionally, a near 50/50 split is more neutral on dry roads as well.
BMW has stated that the 38/62 split is to give the vehicle a more traditional RWD feel, and they succeeded in that respect, with RWD handling characteristics on snow/ice.
Low range is not as useless as you think. The ML's 4ETS' activation threshold is halved when low range is activated.
fantom, thanks for comments re the two tires. I'm not sure the HL was out when I bought the CTXs. And I have noticed a great deal of recent advertising by Michelin but there was virutally none other than the occ. print ad two years back. I'll give the entire issue a relook when I have to replace the CTXs, but with over 20k miles on them, they look virtually brand new!!
krazyhopz, no straight line tracking/cornering issues with that much change in offset?? (I'm assuming no, since you didn't mention the handling being squirrely as a result........)
We owned two Jeeps, an 85 and a 92, both with 2WD, AWD, and 4WD, and low range. The only time I had either in low range was strictly as a test. I suppose had I needed to pull another vehicle out of the muck it might have been useful.
The 92 is now doing quite useful work on a cattle and wheat ranch in north central MT and I would take bets that it still hasn't been in low range. The roads on the ranch are all dirt or worse, you can get an idea of the type of vehicle that can travel well in the missoura breaks area at CL's LS gallery under wwest.
It occurs to me that maybe like VCs, there is low range and then there is LOW range. The Jeeps' was so low that it was useless above a slow crawl.
I would still say if the X5's tail swung out on an icy curve it was a matter of over-driving, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, wasn't it really nice to be able to simply lift the throttle slightly, adding a little engine drag to the rear, and have it tuck back in so very nicely?
Try THAT with a lot of engine torque allocated to the front!
"I would still say if the X5's tail swung out on an icy curve it was a matter of over-driving, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, wasn't it really nice to be able to simply lift the throttle slightly, adding a little engine drag to the rear, and have it tuck back in so very nicely?"
Nope, not overdriving at all, just normal careful driving given the conditions. I'm afraid that your "lift the throttle slightly" suggestion doesn't really work in practice. What happens is that once the rear end steps out like that, the DSC cuts your throttle immediately, usually before one gets a chance to lift off. It gets rather annoying because this happens quite often because of the RWD bias. In contrast, I find that the ML's 48/52 torque split, as well as the A4's Quattro 50/50 split activated the ESP much less frequently in the same situations. Both simply felt more neutral and balanced; I don't consider 50% to the front as "a lot", but instead just right.
As for the RX300, well, it would probably feel more like a typical FWD vehicle I suppose. :-) That said though, I have years of experience with the T&C's AWD system and it is very easy to get the tailend to step out in the same curve (stop sign, turn right uphill from almost a dead stop) that I was referring to above; easier than the ML or A4 in fact. Once the rear wheels spin, they lose directional control and out goes the tail; yes, it is fun in some situations. I consider the T&C's AWD system as adequate. It usually gets me where I want to go in the snow, but not much more...it's not very proactive and I dislike that. It may be better than the RX's system in some respects, but when it comes to wet or dry surfaces, I would take the RX or HL's if I had a choice.
It seems to me that something on the order of a passenger aircraft's "stick-shaker" in any vehicle with PSM, VSC, etc, might be a big help.
Say torque'ing the steering wheel in a vibratory manner toward the outside of a curve just slightly before the "VSC" system "steps" in. It would help to tell me what I'm doing "wrong" and "advise" me of the immediate results if I don't react quickly enough. As a minimum they should extend the period of time the "slip" indication is illuminated so I have time to look and acknowledge, recognize, what just happened.
I actually like the fact that with ABS the brake pedal pushes back at my foot in a vibratory manner, it tells me that I'm on a low traction surface, something I may, or may not, know, when I first apply the brakes.
And my "lift the throttle" method does actually work, you're complaining because the VSC system did it quicker than you could react.
The interesting point to me is that you were actually able to "over-steer" the X5 even with its stability system in play. Do you suppose that some sort of early indication that the stability system was close to activation would have helped?
And I agree that a 50/50 split, or even more front torque bias, is better operationally, right up to the point of entering the "twilight zone", a loss of traction somewhere. IMMHO the best system would be FWD, or FWD bias, that at the very instant loss of traction was detected would revert to RWD, or RWD torque bias.
And you're perfectly correct about the RX, it is THE vehicle for wet or dry pavement. But then so is the ES300.
It is a real shame the T&C doesn't have some form of VSC/TRAC, (and HID!) say a duplicate of the Toyota Sequoia's, that would make it the TOP DOG in AWD instead of simply being ADEQUATE.
But the real advantage of the current T&C over the RX and HL is the ability to use tire chains safely if the going gets tough.
There usually isn't enough time to give the driver a warning before the stability control system steps in. Once the sensors detect the slide, the system is immediately activated.
No, I'm not complaining that DSC is too quick to react, just that I don't agree that RWD-bias is superior on slippery surfaces. BTW, I'm not sure if you know this, but Lexus's/Acura's stability control systems deactivate when the brake pedal is depressed (which is the first thing that most people touch when they feel that they're sliding). MB's works under braking as well, in conjunction with ABS.
Yuck, FWD-bias? Read Harold P's (4x4abc.com) page about why permament 4WD is better than just 2WD in all conditions:
IMHO, I don't think that the RX is the perfect vehicle for wet and dry pavement, primarily because of the front weight bias, and non-full range stability control system. However, I do think that it is far better than a FWD vehicle. I can't say that I agree that the ES300 is even in the same realm. I've had a few negativeexperiences on uphill wet surfaces where the traction control system decided to cut in on me while turning left across an intersection. Not a pleasant experience to have cars approaching rapidly towards you, and to have the throttle retarded. I had the exact same experiences in an Avalon and a Camry, both equipped with TRACS as well.
As for the T&C AWD system, it is too reactive for my liking (the Honda CR-V's is even worse). I dislike the front wheels having to slip before having the rear wheels activate. On snowy surfaces uphill when starting from a dead stop, in many situations, this reactive setup allows the rear wheels to step out of line because they start spinning (loosing directional control) right after the front wheels just lost traction. This is another situation in which a permanent 4WD/AWD system is simply far superior. It is interesting to note though, that this behaviour is less prevalent in the AWD Highlander (no VSC) that I've driven in the snow. Perhaps because of the relatively low % of torque sent to the rear wheels once the fronts slip.
After a period of time driving with VSC, PSM, etc, you will begin to absent-mindedly rely on these features (they will simply become "wider tires" (more contact patch, road adhesion, etc.)and then you will be right back where you started.
Whereas, like in the case of the stick-shaker, with some sort of vibratory indication, you are in the control loop, and eventually you would become more fully aware of the vehicle's handling limits.
Absolutely not saying these features are not a good thing, but firmly believe that to be helpful in the long term the driver MUST be in the loop.
Yes, I agree that we shouldn't rely on these devices, but instead learn to drive with them. If not, I wouldn't repeatedly attend these advanced driving classes. I don't need a "shaker" to inform me that I'm sliding. Good driver training, common sense, and experience will more than surfice.
BTW, any comments on VSC/VSA not being full-range?
was/is that VSC(?) has (much) better sensors than your butt, so it may interact and prevent a "slide" without your ever noticing.
I have never driven a full-range VSC (unless the one in my 01 C4 is) so I can't give an opinion except to say that if the one in my RX is full-range I have a junior programmer who could do better.
I just received your invite to the "track days" and I find the issue about changing brake fluid a bit puzzling.
I participate in a few automotive forums on the internet and my advice has always been don't allow any dealer to mess with your brake fluids at anything less than 100k miles unless you must have brake work done for some reason.
My position is as follows:
To my knowledge no dealer will use skilled or even semi-skilled labor for routine (repetitive) maintenance tasks, the skill level most typically used is just above that of a McD "flipper". I would never advise anyone to allow their brakes be touched by non-skilled personnel.
Today's brake systems are incredibly well sealed. Normal brake pressures are extraordinary and now with most systems having ABS, the pulsating "hydraulic hammer" pressures mean/require an even higher level of sealing and thus resistance to atmospheric contamination.
So the only possible way for contamination to enter the system is via the filler cap, and no manufacturer would provide an easy entry path there.
Also, having worked on a few brake systems in my time, it is obvious to me that any contamination, water, would soon find its way via capillary action, into the small spaces and "crevices" around the brake pistons and in the o-ring groves. So, to my knowledge, if one were serious about "flushing" brake systems to remove the only likely contaminant, water, only a complete teardown would really suffice.
Additionally the brake "bleeding" orifices provided by the manufacturers are there to bleed air bubbles from the system. Air bubbles rise to the top of brake fluid, contaminants, water, sinks to the bottom.
Thirty years ago changing brake fluids on a scheduled basis was unheard of, and now with such tremendous improvements in brake fluid and brake system technology suddenly the dealers are saying change, flush, your brake fluid on a scheduled basis, I need the money for college for my kids.
Dear Willard, Since you are also a Porsche enthusiast besides being a RX300 enthusiast, I will share a brake bleeding trick I learned from Chuck Stoddard, President, Stoddard Imported Cars, Willoughby, Ohio many years ago. He is a Porsche dealer, and told the PCA Club that if you really want a hard brake pedal, save an old worn set of brake pads. Install these pads prior to bleeding your brakes, and installing new fluid. After your brakes are bled, and the new fluid installed, remove the worn pads, and install new ones. You should have an incredibly firm brake pedal. I followed this procedure on my 924, and nearly bounced my eyeballs off my glasses the first time I hit the brakes. Be well.
Yes, PSM is full range, and it does works under braking as well. Since VSC deactivates under braking, you end up plowing into whatever obstacle you're sliding towards. While doing back-to-back comparisons of various cars on the track on a simulated low traction surface, it was quite obvious how major a flaw this is; in case you're wondering, the friction co-efficient on the surfaces ranged from ice, to packed snow, to rain, depending on which portion of the track one was on.
There were also various AWD cars present, with varying torque split ratios (RWD-bias, FWD-bias, and 50/50). After hours of comparison, it was unanimously agreed that the vehicles with the 50/50 splits were the most neutral among the pack on the low traction surface; this is part of the reason why I don't agree that the X5's system is better than the ML's.
Yes, I do agree that stability control can intervene fairly transparent. Didn't you find that Toyota's beeper enough warning for you? It drove me nuts!
BTW, MB specifies a brake fluid change about every 2 years (no mileage specified) for their newer vehicles because of the (4)ETS/ESP/Brake Assist, as well as the fact that they use a vented resevoir where moisture can get in over time. Spending about US$50 every two years seems quite reasonable to me.
Water and oil (brake fluid) don't mix. Assuming I do have water in my 01 C4's brake fluid by May of 03 by what method, other than a complete teardown and rebuild, can it be removed?
I haven't torn down all that many disk brake calipers but the few that I have had a definite indication of rusting on the bottom of the brake pistons near the seal and nowhere else.
Simple flushing, at least as I understand the procedure, cannot remove water in these spaces.
FWD or AWD with front torque bias. On dry pavement with the engine/weight in the front there can be no better drive arrangement!
Right up until the very instant the requirement for roadbed adhesion exceeds the ability of the front tires' contact patch. Wouldn't it be really nice at that point to instantly move the motive force to the rear, or at least mostly so?
But that ability doesn't yet exist, so what's the best compromise? IMMHO it is NOT a 50/50 engine torque split.
A 50/50 split would be perfect if you never needed to add in a bit (or a lot) of directional control or correction. With a 50/50 split you will often be over-loading the contact patch of the front wheels/tires vs the rear in low traction conditions.
So IMMHO the very best compromise is something on the order of a 30/70 split, leaving some reserve roadbed adhesion margin at the front for when it is needed, and in low traction conditions you are absolutely guaranteed it WILL be needed.
Unanimous agreement...
Was the FIX in??
If you take two vehicles (no VSC, PSM, etc.) with 50/50 split and one with a 30/70 split and drive them at equal speeds on a low traction surface in ever tightening circles the vehicle with the 50/50 split would lose each and every trial. That is unless someone has rescinded the laws of physics while I wasn't looking.
Did you notice in that straight line braking tests on an ice rink that the vehicles with ABS took more distance to stop than vehicles without?
The modern day solution should be to only activate ABS if there is an indication via VSC/PSM sensing of a threat of loss of directional control.
I would mind the beeper a lot less if the indication was still there once I had the opportunity/time to look at it.
Motor Trend reports the upgrade to 3.3 for the v6(We all ready knew that -RX330) but they also report we can expect about 240HP with that. I'm hoping about means 245. RX launches early '03.
This is probably akin to me banging my head against the wall...
But brake fluid is hygroscopic. Hygroscopic means that instead of being suspended (Where it can settle) that the fluid ABSORBS moisture.
Also, there is a condition known as "heat cycling".
Are you self-convinced that a dealership won't work on your brakes properly? I can completely accept that you are. So take it to a high-end independent shop.
does mean moisture absorbing, "sucks" it right out of the air like 200 proof grain alcohol, but in the case of brake fluid does it really also mean that the absorbed moisture will not separate over time and settle to the bottom?
I don't know the truth of this but why else would I only see rust and corrosion on the bottom of the brake pistons?
And which, where do I find, non-hygroscopic brake fluid? "Heat cycling". This is the very same argument I have seen used regarding the needless changing out of automatic transmission fluid. It is my personal position on this that as long as the heat cycling is within the range expected by the fluid manufacturer/formulater then there will be no short term (less than 100k miles) adverse affects to the fluid.
Since about 84 my Porsche's have been maintained by Squire's Autowerkes, only!
Isn't this the RX 300 Board? I see there's a moderator, but other than a tire discussion a few days ago since I joined, the past 5 days have had little/nothing to do with the RX 300.
What is all this Porsche stuff? Jeep stuff? Chrysler T&C? (This one is plain ridiculous) Some guy copying his off-topic e-mail? Wha? Just questioning. If it sounds like a complaint, sorry.
Only if the RX300 doesn't come with AWD, VSC, brake fluid, etc, etc. Anyone who says the past 20 or so posts are off-topic doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, much about the RX300.
"Anyone who says the past 20 or so posts are off-topic doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, much about the RX300."
I guess I'm the "anyone" referred to here. Holy cow! I was just questioning. I'm sorry if it sounded like a complaint. I'd like to know more about the RX 300, but wwest, insults are not my bag. I need to go elsewhere. How do I remove my info?
Don't leave, certainly not because of me, I've become just a tad thin-skinned from too much sniping so may I offer my apology if I inadvertantly insulted you.
There's slots to learn here, but maybe you will have to ignore some of us when we do comparisons between the RX300, and aspects thereof, and other vehicles.
Due to extraneous circumstances it looks like our 2002 RX purchase will now have to be put off till late 2002 or early 2003.
In an attempt to placate ourselves, we also rationalized that the delay could be good because we'd most likely also be able to see real pictures of the new 2004 model by then to compare.
From what we understand, the 2003 model year is only going to run till about April. At that point the new 2004 is supposed to come out as a mid-year replacement --- is that correct? That would give the RX a 5-year run, typical of Toyota, as it was mid-year introduction in 1998.
This could make for some very good deals on the "old" (current) RX as dealers try to clear space for the replacement sometime in early 2003.
This was the title of my first post, because I didn't understand what the topic was. I posted twice and actually apologized both times. Then I get smacked with: "Anyone who says the past 20 or so posts are off-topic doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, much about the RX300."
Using the pronoun "anyone" instead of referring to me directly was bad enough, but to claim that your insult was inadvertant is total crap. I don't need this.
Hey, moderator, Aren't there rules against abusive posts?
I understand what the topic was then and is now: "Your credibility is limited."
Then I get smacked with: "Anyone who says the past 20 or so posts are off-topic doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, much about the RX300."
Actually, I thought that was a cheap shot and assumed it was directed at a host, at least that is what it looked like from the context. We tend not take them too seriously.
With respect to abusive posts, we generally try to coax people back into line politely but we do have our limits.
It was directed at the host (Steve) and ogi, thus "anyone". And speaking of cheap shots "can we talk about the RX300 now" from the edmunds host was a pretty low blow, considering their supposed positions and responsibilities as moderators.
How could anyone read those past twenty posts and think them not related, maybe only indirectly, but related just the same, to the RX300? Maybe in something of a disparaging manner, but has someone indicated that the thread's "playing field" isn't to be level?
And sure. those posts openly discuss issues across the marque "spectrum", but find me one that doesn't have application to the RX300.
And while I'm at it I did look at ogi's past posts for reference, could his/her statements be any more cryptic?
But...I do think ogi drawing someone into pleading for him/her to stay on this board was pretty funny. Way to go ogi!
But then it's important to use TH as one's last bastion of free speech, no matter how boring, when one has been kinda...tossed...from the clublexus.com site...eh?
Actually I thought the extended discussion about the tail swinging out on X5s, Caravans, etc. got to be a bit much, and not especially helpful to folks popping in here to see how people were liking their RX300. ymmv. Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I found out bimmer.org is more helpful than this site. Most of the post are arguing about each other comment instead giving technical help. I better sell the rx300 of my wife and keep the X5.
What about the reliability RX300 vs X5? I have no experience about BMW but 2002 consumer report indicates X5 has got the lowest rating, a full black dot, vs RX300's full red dot. However in the itemized area, X5 still has lots of red or half-red dots...
My personal rating gives a higher priority to the non-off-road "usability" of the 4WD/AWD system, and in this SUV mid-range "class" the X5 is the best of the best.
I'll take being stuck in the service bay rarely over being stuck at night on a cold and snowy mountain pass, rarely, every time.
In order to "give" technical help there must be a "taker", questioner. And no one, including myself, is shy about responding to our fellow owners needs if we feel we have information of value. Have I even seen one enquiry on this thread that went unanswered?
And Steve, if having the RX300 openly disparaged bothers you, you might want to follow the lead of the SC430 host and create a thread of "sweetness only" for the RX300.
"popping in". (poor attention span??) If I want to know the usefulness of a technical book I spin some time analyzing it. In this vein a much better search engine would help emensely.
But, I stopped the needless responding to the snipping at CL, so, lets get back to the WIDE discussions of the RX300, okay with me.
I don't follow the SC430 or the RX300 Owner's Club, but I suspect the Owner's Club is sweeter than this board.
The hosts still have access to a better search engine but I haven't heard anything lately about how the beta testing is going. Guess they are still concerned whether it's going to scale up or slashdot the site. Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Just finished some research on roof racks for the RX300 and thought others might find some of this info useful. Thule has three different options: (1) using existing factory cross bars, (2) using existing factory tracks, (3) using nothing factory. In all three cases, the load limit is spec'd to 75 lbs. Since Thule racks can carry a lot more (up to 165 lbs) this suggests either that (a) Thule is very conservative, or (b) the 75 lbs is limited by more than the factory rack but is inherent in the roof design.
Yakima has only one option for RX300s, and that's to use nothing factory. They spec 125 lbs as carrying capacity.
FWIW, according to the REI salesman the Yakima solution is essentially a permanent install. ("After you see how hard it is to get it installed correctly, you'll only be willing to de-install it once.") Since that wasn't acceptable to me, I went with the Thule 889 which uses the factory cross bars. (It adds a Thule load bar in the front only.) Only complaint is with two bikes, there's no room for front wheel carriers. Thule front wheel carriers only fit a Thule load bar, but Performance Bike has wheel carriers that *look* like they might fit the factory cross bars. I've ordered one. If it works, I'll be able to carry wheels on the back factory cross bar.
I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the 75 lb load limit is the result of the flimsy (assumption based on T/L load limit)crossbar design and not the track mounts. If you have a look at the mounting position and likely structural integrity of the body at the crossbar track mounting points I think you will agree.
The only other possibility for the low weight limit was/is to reduce the vehicle's rollover tendency rating. Even a low 75 lbs at the very top of the vehicle might make a significant difference in this rating.
Maybe I did the right thing by widening my RX's stance 3"
Comments
In my opinion a fair amount of our purchasing dollar goes to pay for Michelin advertising, and while they make a very good tire, it is overrated due, in part, to the hype that I see perpetuated here. People are buying the child protection ads (gag me out) and the Michelin dough boy...the name... believing they are getting the best product out there---and it isn't. At best, all tire models are tradeoffs of many attributes.
I spent a fair amount of time in an RX with MCT tires and liked them much more than the stock Goodyears. After I did some research I found that the Dueler HL, All Season, UNT-T AQ, was a better tire than the MCT...for me. Bridgestone does a much better job of manufacturing tires than they do of marketing them. That seems to be a Michelin strong point. The Dueler HL has been a quiet, sporty, comfortable tire with excellent wet and dry traction, and after 10,000 miles, little wear.
Where Bridgestone has dropped the ball is by continuing the Dueler name with this relatively new SUV tire, and thus confusing the marketplace, TireRack postings, and people on many other Boards, including Edmunds. The Bridgestone Dueler HL is a completely different, and far superior, tire than the Dueler HT, or the Dueler AT, or the winter Dueler DM-Z2.
Enough already. I just wanted people looking for tires to know that the MCT is not the only alternative, or even the best alternative. And no, I have no stock in Bridgestone, don't own a tire store, or have any motivation other than giving folks the benefit of my experience. YMMV.
To save everyone else the 3 month headache I went through, here is the dealio.
Every after-market wheel maker says they have fitments for the 300. The problem is they are basing the fit on the 40mm offset of the standard wheel. This wheel is 6.5 inches wide and takes a 225 tire. If you go up plus 2 sizes, the correct tire to keep things within spec is the 255x55x18. The problem is, with a 40mm offset you will never clear the back strut without spacers. I personally do not like spacers. When you ask about upgrades, ask the manufacturer if they have fitted the wheels with the 255x55x18 and most of them will say no. They recommend a tire that fits the wheel,not the vehicle.
If you want to upgrade look for something in the 18-24mm offset range. The 18 will stick out a bit but, you will not look like the latest hip-hop star. Plus it gives it such a good look. Hope this helps.
You are speaking logically.
And a Defender 90 will still spank an H2
Sounds like your really enjoying your RX, trmga. 25,000 miles in less than a year is impressive. BTW, while I don't know it for a fact, I've heard that the Duelers, and the MCTs for that matter, are not the greatest in snow. I'm in Flordia so wet traction is important while snow is a non issue.
At ANY age, leaving rubber in an RX-300 would be a real trick ;-)
"...Quadra-Drive is a true "4-wheel drive" system. All four wheels are capable of driving the vehicle. Not only do you get the benefit of front-to-rear torque transfer, but side-to-side as well, resulting in the ability to keep the vehicle moving even when only one wheel has traction. It's what makes Grand Cherokee the most capable Jeep vehicle ever."
We drove two Jeeps, an 85 Cherokee Limited and a 92 Cherokee Limited, very pleased with both. The problem was that when we looked at the JGC (our Jeep "box" was being discontinued) we both came away somewhat disappointed, something about the overall look, bulked up outside but without the appropriate level of space inside (reminded us too much of the Explorer and Expedition).
The T&C is quite sharp in the looks department, certainly has enough interior space, and is something I would be embarrassed about picking up foreign visiters at the airport in.
And yes, it would be really nice if Chrysler would put Lexus class intrumentation, electronics, etc. in the T&C, but in the meantime I'll manage with my RX300 and with the Ford Aerostar at the "ready" if need be.
Been seriously thinking about buying an HL viscous clutch and filling it with REAL viscous fluid and no "bubble" and installing it in my RX but I'd probably have to disable the ABS, or maybe just let the front ABS argue with the rear if need be.
NOTE OF CAUTION:
Please don't consider the above VC swap/upgrade idea as any level of reasonable suggestion. A HARD VC coupling between the front driveline and the rear in the RX or HL during severe braking could very easily lead to loss of control of the vehicle due to inadvertant "locking" of the rear wheels/brakes.
That's the reason the T&C has an over-running clutch in the rear driveline, to uncouple the front and rear drivelines during moderate to severe braking efforts.
OK, maybe not superior...but at least equal?
WW, glad you've had good luck with your T&C.
There are hundreds of thousands of us ex-Chrylser owners that will make sure that company not only NEVER sees another dime of our automobile-related money...but will also pass that bit of advice to offspring, relatives, neighbors, and internet bulletin boards.
And it's not just because our minivan had a few problems - I'd had a few problems with GM and Ford domestic vehicles as well yet I'd still buy another one from those companies if they met my needs.
It was the total lack of customer support, from the CEO at HQ to the zone office to the dealer to the service writers - that made it our One & Only Chrylser.
And I have never questioned that the RX300 is a much better, more reliable vehicle, overall, than the T&C, just making the point that if your priorities tilt toward AWD, the T&C has an AWD system that is far superior to the one in the RX.
Air flow noise:
Remove, or move, the rooftop carrier crossbar luggage racks.
In low traction conditions (snow, ice, etc) allocating the front tire's "contact patch" (roadbed adhesion) predominantly to directional control and the rear to driving or "dragging" forces is a lot more desireable than asking the front tires to do both.
My requirements, as I believe are most others, are not for off-road, so a low range gear box is totally useless.
BMW has stated that the 38/62 split is to give the vehicle a more traditional RWD feel, and they succeeded in that respect, with RWD handling characteristics on snow/ice.
Low range is not as useless as you think. The ML's 4ETS' activation threshold is halved when low range is activated.
krazyhopz, no straight line tracking/cornering issues with that much change in offset?? (I'm assuming no, since you didn't mention the handling being squirrely as a result........)
The 92 is now doing quite useful work on a cattle and wheat ranch in north central MT and I would take bets that it still hasn't been in low range. The roads on the ranch are all dirt or worse, you can get an idea of the type of vehicle that can travel well in the missoura breaks area at CL's LS gallery under wwest.
It occurs to me that maybe like VCs, there is low range and then there is LOW range. The Jeeps' was so low that it was useless above a slow crawl.
I would still say if the X5's tail swung out on an icy curve it was a matter of over-driving, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, wasn't it really nice to be able to simply lift the throttle slightly, adding a little engine drag to the rear, and have it tuck back in so very nicely?
Try THAT with a lot of engine torque allocated to the front!
over-driving, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, wasn't it really nice to be able to simply lift the throttle slightly, adding a little engine drag to the rear, and have it tuck back in so very nicely?"
Nope, not overdriving at all, just normal careful driving given the conditions. I'm afraid that your "lift the throttle slightly" suggestion doesn't really work in practice. What happens is that once the rear end steps out like that, the DSC cuts your throttle immediately, usually before one gets a chance to lift off. It gets rather annoying because this happens quite often because of the RWD bias. In contrast, I find that the ML's 48/52 torque split, as well as the A4's Quattro 50/50 split activated the ESP much less frequently in the same situations. Both simply felt more neutral and balanced; I don't consider 50% to the front as "a lot", but instead just right.
As for the RX300, well, it would probably feel more like a typical FWD vehicle I suppose. :-) That said though, I have years of experience with the T&C's AWD system and it is very easy to get the tailend to step out in the same curve (stop sign, turn right uphill from almost a dead stop) that I was referring to above; easier than the ML or A4 in fact. Once the rear wheels spin, they lose directional control and out goes the tail; yes, it is fun in some situations. I consider the T&C's AWD system as adequate. It usually gets me where I want to go in the snow, but not much more...it's not very proactive and I dislike that. It may be better than the RX's system in some respects, but when it comes to wet or dry surfaces, I would take the RX or HL's if I had a choice.
Say torque'ing the steering wheel in a vibratory manner toward the outside of a curve just slightly before the "VSC" system "steps" in. It would help to tell me what I'm doing "wrong" and "advise" me of the immediate results if I don't react quickly enough. As a minimum they should extend the period of time the "slip" indication is illuminated so I have time to look and acknowledge, recognize, what just happened.
I actually like the fact that with ABS the brake pedal pushes back at my foot in a vibratory manner, it tells me that I'm on a low traction surface, something I may, or may not, know, when I first apply the brakes.
And my "lift the throttle" method does actually work, you're complaining because the VSC system did it quicker than you could react.
The interesting point to me is that you were actually able to "over-steer" the X5 even with its stability system in play. Do you suppose that some sort of early indication that the stability system was close to activation would have helped?
And I agree that a 50/50 split, or even more front torque bias, is better operationally, right up to the point of entering the "twilight zone", a loss of traction somewhere. IMMHO the best system would be FWD, or FWD bias, that at the very instant loss of traction was detected would revert to RWD, or RWD torque bias.
And you're perfectly correct about the RX, it is THE vehicle for wet or dry pavement. But then so is the ES300.
It is a real shame the T&C doesn't have some form of VSC/TRAC, (and HID!) say a duplicate of the Toyota Sequoia's, that would make it the TOP DOG in AWD instead of simply being ADEQUATE.
But the real advantage of the current T&C over the RX and HL is the ability to use tire chains safely if the going gets tough.
No, I'm not complaining that DSC is too quick to react, just that I don't agree that RWD-bias is superior on slippery surfaces. BTW, I'm not sure if you know this, but Lexus's/Acura's stability control systems deactivate when the brake pedal is depressed (which is the first thing that most people touch when they feel that they're sliding). MB's works under braking as well, in conjunction with ABS.
Yuck, FWD-bias? Read Harold P's (4x4abc.com) page about why permament 4WD is better than just 2WD in all conditions:
http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/tractionturn2.html
IMHO, I don't think that the RX is the perfect vehicle for wet and dry pavement, primarily because of the front weight bias, and non-full range stability control system. However, I do think that it is far better than a FWD vehicle. I can't say that I agree that the ES300 is even in the same realm. I've had a few negativeexperiences on uphill wet surfaces where the traction control system decided to cut in on me while turning left across an intersection. Not a pleasant experience to have cars approaching rapidly towards you, and to have the throttle retarded. I had the exact same experiences in an Avalon and a Camry, both equipped with TRACS as well.
As for the T&C AWD system, it is too reactive for my liking (the Honda CR-V's is even worse). I dislike the front wheels having to slip before having the rear wheels activate. On snowy surfaces uphill when starting from a dead stop, in many situations, this reactive setup allows the rear wheels to step out of line because they start spinning (loosing directional control) right after the front wheels just lost traction. This is another situation in which a permanent 4WD/AWD system is simply far superior. It is interesting to note though, that this behaviour is less prevalent in the AWD Highlander (no VSC) that I've driven in the snow. Perhaps because of the relatively low % of torque sent to the rear wheels once the fronts slip.
Whereas, like in the case of the stick-shaker, with some sort of vibratory indication, you are in the control loop, and eventually you would become more fully aware of the vehicle's handling limits.
Absolutely not saying these features are not a good thing, but firmly believe that to be helpful in the long term the driver MUST be in the loop.
BTW, any comments on VSC/VSA not being full-range?
I have never driven a full-range VSC (unless the one in my 01 C4 is) so I can't give an opinion except to say that if the one in my RX is full-range I have a junior programmer who could do better.
President
Dear Sir,
I just received your invite to the "track days" and I find the issue about changing brake fluid a bit puzzling.
I participate in a few automotive forums on the internet and my advice has always been don't allow any dealer to mess with your brake fluids at anything less than 100k miles unless you must have brake work done for some reason.
My position is as follows:
To my knowledge no dealer will use skilled or even semi-skilled labor for routine (repetitive) maintenance tasks, the skill level most typically used is just above that of a McD "flipper". I would never advise anyone to allow their brakes be touched by non-skilled personnel.
Today's brake systems are incredibly well sealed. Normal brake pressures are extraordinary and now with most systems having ABS, the pulsating "hydraulic hammer" pressures mean/require an even higher level of sealing and thus resistance to atmospheric contamination.
So the only possible way for contamination to enter the system is via the filler cap, and no manufacturer would provide an easy entry path there.
Also, having worked on a few brake systems in my time, it is obvious to me that any contamination, water, would soon find its way via capillary action, into the small spaces and "crevices" around the brake pistons and in the o-ring groves. So, to my knowledge, if one were serious about "flushing" brake systems to remove the only likely contaminant, water, only a complete teardown would really suffice.
Additionally the brake "bleeding" orifices provided by the manufacturers are there to bleed air bubbles from the system. Air bubbles rise to the top of brake fluid, contaminants, water, sinks to the bottom.
Thirty years ago changing brake fluids on a scheduled basis was unheard of, and now with such tremendous improvements in brake fluid and brake system technology suddenly the dealers are saying change, flush, your brake fluid on a scheduled basis, I need the money for college for my kids.
Willard West
Since you are also a Porsche enthusiast besides being a RX300 enthusiast, I will share a brake bleeding trick I learned from Chuck Stoddard, President, Stoddard Imported Cars, Willoughby, Ohio many years ago. He is a Porsche dealer, and told the PCA Club that if you really want a hard brake pedal, save an old worn set of brake pads. Install these pads prior to bleeding your brakes, and installing new fluid. After your brakes are bled, and the new fluid installed, remove the worn pads, and install new ones. You should have an incredibly firm brake pedal. I followed this procedure on my 924, and nearly bounced my eyeballs off my glasses the first time I hit the brakes. Be well.
Mr. Rogers
There were also various AWD cars present, with varying torque split ratios (RWD-bias, FWD-bias, and 50/50). After hours of comparison, it was unanimously agreed that the vehicles with the 50/50 splits were the most neutral among the pack on the low traction surface; this is part of the reason why I don't agree that the X5's system is better than the ML's.
Yes, I do agree that stability control can intervene fairly transparent. Didn't you find that Toyota's beeper enough warning for you? It drove me nuts!
BTW, MB specifies a brake fluid change about every 2 years (no mileage specified) for their newer vehicles because of the (4)ETS/ESP/Brake Assist, as well as the fact that they use a vented resevoir where moisture can get in over time. Spending about US$50 every two years seems quite reasonable to me.
I haven't torn down all that many disk brake calipers but the few that I have had a definite indication of rusting on the bottom of the brake pistons near the seal and nowhere else.
Simple flushing, at least as I understand the procedure, cannot remove water in these spaces.
FWD or AWD with front torque bias. On dry pavement with the engine/weight in the front there can be no better drive arrangement!
Right up until the very instant the requirement for roadbed adhesion exceeds the ability of the front tires' contact patch. Wouldn't it be really nice at that point to instantly move the motive force to the rear, or at least mostly so?
But that ability doesn't yet exist, so what's the best compromise? IMMHO it is NOT a 50/50 engine torque split.
A 50/50 split would be perfect if you never needed to add in a bit (or a lot) of directional control or correction. With a 50/50 split you will often be over-loading the contact patch of the front wheels/tires vs the rear in low traction conditions.
So IMMHO the very best compromise is something on the order of a 30/70 split, leaving some reserve roadbed adhesion margin at the front for when it is needed, and in low traction conditions you are absolutely guaranteed it WILL be needed.
Unanimous agreement...
Was the FIX in??
If you take two vehicles (no VSC, PSM, etc.) with 50/50 split and one with a 30/70 split and drive them at equal speeds on a low traction surface in ever tightening circles the vehicle with the 50/50 split would lose each and every trial. That is unless someone has rescinded the laws of physics while I wasn't looking.
Did you notice in that straight line braking tests on an ice rink that the vehicles with ABS took more distance to stop than vehicles without?
The modern day solution should be to only activate ABS if there is an indication via VSC/PSM sensing of a threat of loss of directional control.
I would mind the beeper a lot less if the indication was still there once I had the opportunity/time to look at it.
But brake fluid is hygroscopic. Hygroscopic means that instead of being suspended (Where it can settle) that the fluid ABSORBS moisture.
Also, there is a condition known as "heat cycling".
Are you self-convinced that a dealership won't work on your brakes properly? I can completely accept that you are. So take it to a high-end independent shop.
Bill
Most are but some are not.
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
I don't know the truth of this but why else would I only see rust and corrosion on the bottom of the brake pistons?
And which, where do I find, non-hygroscopic brake
fluid?
"Heat cycling". This is the very same argument I have seen used regarding the needless changing out of automatic transmission fluid. It is my personal position on this that as long as the heat cycling is within the range expected by the fluid manufacturer/formulater then there will be no short term (less than 100k miles) adverse affects to the fluid.
Since about 84 my Porsche's have been maintained by Squire's Autowerkes, only!
What is all this Porsche stuff? Jeep stuff? Chrysler T&C? (This one is plain ridiculous) Some guy copying his off-topic e-mail? Wha? Just questioning. If it sounds like a complaint, sorry.
Anyone want to talk about the RX300?
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I guess I'm the "anyone" referred to here. Holy cow! I was just questioning. I'm sorry if it sounded like a complaint. I'd like to know more about the RX 300, but wwest, insults are not my bag. I need to go elsewhere. How do I remove my info?
There's slots to learn here, but maybe you will have to ignore some of us when we do comparisons between the RX300, and aspects thereof, and other vehicles.
In an attempt to placate ourselves, we also rationalized that the delay could be good because we'd most likely also be able to see real pictures of the new 2004 model by then to compare.
From what we understand, the 2003 model year is only going to run till about April. At that point the new 2004 is supposed to come out as a mid-year replacement --- is that correct? That would give the RX a 5-year run, typical of Toyota, as it was mid-year introduction in 1998.
This could make for some very good deals on the "old" (current) RX as dealers try to clear space for the replacement sometime in early 2003.
Does this make any sense?
Using the pronoun "anyone" instead of referring to me directly was bad enough, but to claim that your insult was inadvertant is total crap. I don't need this.
Hey, moderator, Aren't there rules against abusive posts?
I understand what the topic was then and is now: "Your credibility is limited."
Adios.
Actually, I thought that was a cheap shot and assumed it was directed at a host, at least that is what it looked like from the context. We tend not take them too seriously.
With respect to abusive posts, we generally try to coax people back into line politely but we do have our limits.
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
How could anyone read those past twenty posts and think them not related, maybe only indirectly, but related just the same, to the RX300? Maybe in something of a disparaging manner, but has someone indicated that the thread's "playing field" isn't to be level?
And sure. those posts openly discuss issues across the marque "spectrum", but find me one that doesn't have application to the RX300.
And while I'm at it I did look at ogi's past posts for reference, could his/her statements be any more cryptic?
Actually, really boring, IMHO.
But...I do think ogi drawing someone into pleading for him/her to stay on this board was pretty funny. Way to go ogi!
But then it's important to use TH as one's last bastion of free speech, no matter how boring, when one has been kinda...tossed...from the clublexus.com site...eh?
That is synonymous with "let's not talk about or at each other." So, let's get back to the RX300.
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I'll take being stuck in the service bay rarely over being stuck at night on a cold and snowy mountain pass, rarely, every time.
In order to "give" technical help there must be a "taker", questioner. And no one, including myself, is shy about responding to our fellow owners needs if we feel we have information of value. Have I even seen one enquiry on this thread that went unanswered?
And Steve, if having the RX300 openly disparaged bothers you, you might want to follow the lead of the SC430 host and create a thread of "sweetness only" for the RX300.
"popping in". (poor attention span??) If I want to know the usefulness of a technical book I spin some time analyzing it. In this vein a much better search engine would help emensely.
But, I stopped the needless responding to the snipping at CL, so, lets get back to the WIDE discussions of the RX300, okay with me.
The hosts still have access to a better search engine but I haven't heard anything lately about how the beta testing is going. Guess they are still concerned whether it's going to scale up or slashdot the site.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Yakima has only one option for RX300s, and that's to use nothing factory. They spec 125 lbs as carrying capacity.
FWIW, according to the REI salesman the Yakima solution is essentially a permanent install. ("After you see how hard it is to get it installed correctly, you'll only be willing to de-install it once.") Since that wasn't acceptable to me, I went with the Thule 889 which uses the factory cross bars. (It adds a Thule load bar in the front only.) Only complaint is with two bikes, there's no room for front wheel carriers. Thule front wheel carriers only fit a Thule load bar, but Performance Bike has wheel carriers that *look* like they might fit the factory cross bars. I've ordered one. If it works, I'll be able to carry wheels on the back factory cross bar.
The only other possibility for the low weight limit was/is to reduce the vehicle's rollover tendency rating. Even a low 75 lbs at the very top of the vehicle might make a significant difference in this rating.
Maybe I did the right thing by widening my RX's stance 3"