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
One more question. Does anyone knows how to remove ball point ink from auto leather. My kids made about 1 inch in diameter mark on the back seat. I have SureFit after market leather, my first and last dealer installed option. They tell you that it will look better than the factory. Quite the opposite. It looks very bad compare to the original and will probably effect resale value. My mistake.
http://www.airsept.com/eed.html
There are two problems that are inherent to/with the conversion to the new less efficient refrigerant, in the southern states where summertime average overnight temperatures hover around 50 to 70F, bacterial, mold, spores thrive mightily on the damp and dark A/C evaporator vanes.
In any geographical area you chose the additional ability of the much more dense and complex (made so to overcome the loss of efficiency) evaporator core to retain a thin film of moisture for extended periods is resulting in numerous reports of sudden, spontaneous and unpredictable interior windshield fogging.
So if your windshield tends to fog over about 5 miles into a cool morning drive, blame it on the fact that you used the A/C yesterday. Or if it just suddenly quickly fogs for seemingly no good reason at all:
A. You turned off the A/C about XX minutes ago (indeterminate period depending on overall external and internal climatic conditions) and now that thin film of moisture is beginning to evaporate into the cabin's incoming airstream.
B. The A/C compressor was shut down completely automatically XX minutes ago due climatic conditions (OAT declined below 35F, etc.)and now that thin film.....
C. You used the partial or full defog/demist function XX minutes ago and unbeknownst to you (some T/L vehicles give no indication) that activated the A/C system for dehumidification purposes. The A/C compressor stops working as soon as you return the system to normal mode and that thin film of...
The best solution I have found is to leave the windows and/or sunroof open in the garage at night, every night, so as that thin film of moisture evaporates from the 10,000 square inches of evaporator surface natural convection (hopefully) will carry it out of the passenger cabin.
Good luck.
Any Limited with no sunroof is an oddball car in most regions, as would be a Limited with the cloth seats. Also rare is a non-sunroof car in the heat of summer.
The 2003 Highlanders first start hitting the ports on 8/23 (Southern CA and Portland, Or) and the east coats gets them after 9/7 thru 9/12. Honolulu starts getting theirs 9/9.
The spring ans summer of 2003 will bring us a Lexus version of the Highlander with special fuel efficiency ( the hybrid Prius has done so well, expect the fuel cell cars to debut soon in SUVs as well) and afterwards, the Hybrid Highlander debuts, possibly fuel cell car instead of the hybrid system.
The 2003 model Highlanders will be a carryover from 02's other than a few color changes and interior appointment upgrades. Stay tuned for news and updates.
Thanks for all your good info. I like the HL, but the drivers seat lumbar is a real pain. I wish it would go away fully when you press the button.
I special ordered my HL in July,'01 and it arrived in November,'02. I knew ahead of time that there would be changes, according to what happened in the '02 model year, but otherwise, my HL came exactly as I ordered, which was pretty funky.
"so it's impossible to build-order a weird or unusual Japan-build car such as Highlander in June, July, August."
Not impossible at all.....see above.
"Also rare is a non-sunroof car in the heat of summer."
Are you serious about this one? I live in Minn and I see all kinds of non-sunroof HL's in the summer here at the dealers.
For two reasons. First, when the engine ECU sees WOT, or a rapid climb of engine water jacket temperatures, it will kill the A/C compressor.
Second, for "driveability" purposes. The T/L engine ECU will always command a slightly higher power level from the engine itself just slightly before engaging the A/C clutch.
So if what you feel is more like a stutter, or slight hesitation, you should have T/L check it out, it NOT normal.
I think what Semantics is referring to is that the 2004 Lexus RX300 will be built on the same platform as the Highlander. Currently the RX300 is built on the old Camray platform. Last I read, the 2004 model of both vehicles will moved to a new plant in Canada and are due out in spring or summer of 2003.
I told the dealer I thought it was coming from the driver's door. The mechanic could hear nothing so I insisted the service manager take a ride with me. He heard it too but thought it was coming from the rear. After removing everything from the hatch and making sure both the spare and jack were tight and the rattle was still there, so I brought it back to the dealership.
The service manager drove around with three other people in the car trying to isolate the rattle. As he put it, it seemed to move from one place to another. In frustration, he got out and started rocking the car from side to side and finally found it: the roof rack. Seems the dealer I got it from had not attached two of the knobs on the rack.
Fortunately he had a couple for a 4-Runner that fit (and look somewhat snazzy).
I tell this story just in case anyone else has an elusive rattle. Hope this helps.
And, as for cars w/o sunroofs, well, I can only speak for this area of the USA.
As for the ordering, what I should have said was that it's impossible to build a 2002 at this time or year. We have no 2003 pricing so one can only request a car based on what's available for 2002 models. Now, had someone ordered a 2001 last summer at this time and wanted a flat floor, and gotten a 2002 instead, they would have been upset due to the change in the standard console for 2002. Things like this are what can upset folks -- not being prepared for the unexpected. I'd dislike having some strange car in the inventory coming that someone cancelled on due to changes beyond anyone's control.
Thanks!
Check out this article for more gory details:
Gray Area
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I had great luck with Troy Duce at Parker Toyota in Coeur 'd Alene. Troy gave me a better deal over the phone than my local dealers would matchr, even picked us up at Spokane airport and gave us a ride to the dealership. Give him a call!
Neither the HL nor the RX are truly AWD vehicles, the best they can do is about 70/30 F/R under dire circumstances otherwise you have about a 90/10 F/R torque distribution along with same really seriosu torque steer.
Why would Toyota market the HL as a 50/50 split AWD system? Surely they didn't come up with that number out of the blue.
I live in northern New England. It snows from December to March and sometimes April. My AWD HL V6 performs perfectly ... without chains. I do not personally care if it 50-50; 70-30, or 90-10 .... what is the very most important to me is the perfect control I have; the confidence I feel; and the safety for myself and my family. The HL is significantly more sure footed than the Ford Explorer I traded; and I would not go back to chains under any circumstance. You did not mention it, but I would not switch to studded tires either.
The HL is not a perfect vehicle, but it exceeds everything I lookd at in 2001. If I were buying today, there are others I would at least investigate, such as the Honda Pilot. But the very best thing of all that I really like most about my HL ...... it is paid for. And, it is a fine automobile.
Happy HL'ing to all.
Thanks.
The only complaint I have with the HL is the traction control under certain circumstances (I want an off switch). I live near a highway onramp that's poorly paved, uphill and very short. If I drive through the rough area when starting out the traction control senses wheel spin and cuts engine power when I want it most.
I also have a Pilot and it works as a front wheel drive vehicle (there is wheel spin)then kicks in the rear as needed. It doesn't have traction control.
Obviously I don't know how it is in the snow yet but I'm sure it'll be fine.
I'm sure you are well aware that in a RWD with an open diff'l if one wheel loses traction then the amount of torque the engine can "despense" will be severely limited.
Adding a rear diff'l with an LSD limits the slippage rate of the wheel that has lost traction by coupling it more tightly to the opposite wheel, hopefully one with more traction.
A center open diff'l operates the very same way, absent something like an LSD, a wheel having lost traction in the front, or the rear, limits the available engine torque to 4X the amount needed to spin the one wheel.
Correctly dersigned, the T/L VC, viscous clutch or coupling, mounted across the center diff'l, should act very much like the LSD would in the rear.
But the VC concept has some design limitations.
There are basically two circumstances when the rotational rate of the front driveline MUST be allowed to significantly differ from that of the rear drive line. When severely or moderately braking, and/or when turning.
The VC must be "flaccid" enough, or with a long, slow enough "attack" rate, to allow this to happen, otherwise the driveline would be damaged.
80% of the braking is done by the front wheels/tires, therefore they will always turn significantly slower than the rear under severe braking. The Chrysler AWD minivan series allows for this by using an over-running clutch in series with the rear driveline.
Neither the HL, RX nor the RAV4 have an over-running clutch. They don't need one because the VC will NEVER tighten to the point of coupling the front braking coefficient to the rear.
The VC in the HL/RX/RAV4 has just enough effectiveness such that no legal action will be likely taken for marketing it as an AWD vehicle when it truly isn't.
For those of you that are perfectly, or maybe not so perfectly, happy with these vehicles I am extremely glad for you.
But for those who are about to purchase, or are considering the purchase of one of these vehicles and might one day need the AWD system to actually perform, why shouldn't they be told the truth?
At any rate, I can't even bother to read your posts anymore, they are just so much water over the damn (....or mud under the Aerostar:)
I agree with the person above who told you to sell your RX300 and go retro to the 4WD Aerostar.
And you didn't even offer to help out the unfortunate sticks in the mud? :-(
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
As do some others, or at least it seems so, I too tire of wwest's ramblings on...maybe he will soon sell his RX300, in favor of an Aerostar, live happily ever after and leave us alone. Although, I suspect that he won't, since the RX300 is actually a good vehicle...as is the Highlander...in my humble opinion regarding both vehicles.
Someone asked if I dislike the RX so very much why do I keep buying them.
Because overall, the RX was, and remains, the BEST choice for me. I have no doubt that Lexus builds the best product in the world marketplace today, but nothing can be perfect, and Lexus has "promised" us that they will "Passionately Pursue Perfection".
When I bought the first RX, the 00, I was told that the normal torque bias was 70/30 and would automatically adjust to 50/50 if needed. Having some knowledge of how a VC does/can work, thus knowing that what the salesman described was clearly feasible, I had no reason to question my Lexus salesman of ten years.
It didn't take long to discover that he had been wrong. Then the 01 came out with HID, VSC/TRAC. I already knew the value of HID and VSC, and my salesman told me that the new TRAC version (vs the 92 LS) was a "clone" of the ML, and thus would automatically allocate torque to any single wheel with traction.
He was wrong again.
The Lexus RX implementation of TRAC is not a "clone" of the ML system, not even close. I have come to believe that the Sequoia's is, but not the RX.
Then I inadvertantly discovered the rear tire clearance problem.
The progression, product improvements, from the 00 to the 01 RX was completely understandable. So what is the harm in "asking" that the new version, to be introduced in the spring of 03, have an equal level of product improvement?
The world turns....
Oh, does anyone doubt that the next model/version of the MDX/Pilot will not have HID (likely even bi-level), VSC, and maybe even a version of TRAC? Absent some really serious enhancements for the next HL/RX, that will likely put the MDX/Pilot just a cut above the RX..
And the Pilot clearly over-shadows the HL already in some respects, AWD, etc.
I would prefer a first hand technical report, and not one that has been tarnished by multiple translations etc.
any help would be appreciated.
thanks
For all makes, there's the 4WD & AWD systems explained discussion.
Both will give you "multiple translations" I'm afraid. For a single site, try the How Thinks Work one, but there may be some errors in their explanation, or so I've heard.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
My home page is at:
strobedata.com
If you should wish to talk directly.
I don't have a clue as to how T/L manages to bias the engine torque the way they apparently do, but I would be more than glad to share with you the deatils of my own testing.
Toyota chose one of them for the HL/RX (which was also used by Mercedes on the M class). I don't think I want to try to climb a mountain with it (by name my Mountaineer should've been able to) but it just works great. Up slippery hills and everything. My only complaint is that on Limiteds brought into New England they put Tracs with VSC. This combination won't allow tracs to be turned off. I would have to kill the ABS also.
The Pilot uses the exact same system as the MDX.
P.S. I've driven Aerostars, Ford stopped making them on purpose. They do look great next to Fairmonts though.
The ML's center diff'l is a "special", torque distribution type, much like those on the Aerostar, not of the "open" variety.
The ML was introduced with stability and traction control, with an additional aspect of the traction system allocated to a "virtual" LSD function. It has three "virtual" limited slip differentials, likely the most comprehensive and capable, yet inexpensive, AWD system in the market today, with the possible exception of the new Sequoia, but those votes are yet to be counted.
VSC/TRAC was introduced on both the RX and the HL in 2001. The TRAC system was touted as being equivalent to the ML's but is clearly not even close.
The good news is that if the Sequoia's ML-like system proves to be successful in Toyota's hands then it will very likely be "ported" to the HL and RX. T/L wouldn't even need to remove the VC, it could remain in place and just be a little more useless than it is in today's models.
If you even really have need to disable TRAC then simply pull the ABS hydraulic pump fuse temporarily.
Now that we have VSC (and/or PSM) to tell us that the vehicle is not following the desired path during heavy braking, why not disable ABS unless/until VSC detects that there is a threat of impending loss of control?
Here's what I have discovered in my research on the Web
Highlander full time 4 wheel drive
The system features three differentials: a centre differential that splits power to the front and rear axles; and open front and rear differentials that split engine torque to their respective wheels
Since each wheel receives 25% of engine power, Highlander is less likely to lose traction during acceleration, when cornering, or on slippery or unevenShould a wheel begin to spin, the viscous coupling controlled centre differential limits slip and channels power to the wheels with traction surfaces.
Sounds like a great system to me - doesn't require operator input.
wwest - why do you think this is inadequate?
Compared to Honda's Real Time 4WD, the Highlander is a step above.
In the RX (assuming the HL is the same as Toyota states) one VC shaft is tied to the rear drive line and the other is tied to the front drive line.
There are basically two circumstances wherein the rear drive line MUST be allowed to rotate at a different rate than the front drive line and this is where the center "open" differential comes into play. When turning, the front wheels follow a different "track" then the rear, therefore the aggregate rotational rate of the front will differ from the rear. The second circumstance is when braking, especially severely. The front brakes do about 80% of that task and so oftentimes during braking the front wheels will turn slower than the rear.
Basically the RX's center "open" differential is there for the same reasons, to do EXACTLY the same job as the front and rear differentials. And that is to "uncouple", allow free-wheeling, of the right or left wheel depending on which one is on the outside of a turn.
Absent this ability of the front and rear open differentials in the RX, either the driveline or your tires would suffer premature failures. The outside tire in a turn MUST be allowed to "free-wheel", otherwise you would be continually "scrubbing" or "dragging" the tires and/or "winding-up", over-stressing, parts of the driveline.
Without the open center differential you would be subjected to these same premature failures but also likely be sacrificing your fingers and knuckles on occasion.
So the overall desire is for there to be little or no VC coupling between these two shafts unless a severe and/or long duration (measured in seconds) front to rear or rear to front driveline rotational disparity circumstance occurs.
If that should happen the commonly understood theory of the VC comes into play. If the front and rear driveline rotational rate matches then the two sets of VC clutch also rotate at an equal level.
Now introduce a disparate rotational rate between the drivelines, one front tire has lost traction, or both, and now the two sets of clutch disks also turn at disparate rates. That creates lots of turbulence in the viscous fluid between the disks, heating it rather quickly and that in turn increases its viscosity. Increased viscosity, 90W vs 10W, obviously increases the coupling coefficient between the two sets of disks, in effect "locking" the rotational rate of the front driveline to the rear.
to be continued...
I know one or more of you have replaced your stock HL headlight bulbs with either "brightwhites" or something else that improves output, and simulates HID/ Xenon.
(Having spent the last couple days driving my father in law's big S-Class, I've decided I like both the brighter field of vision, and the look when they're on.)
Could someone who has made this switch let me know what they put in there (make & model if you have it), and your impressions now that they're in. Thanks.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
LIQUIDS CANNOT BE COMPRESSED.
VISCOSITY OF A LIQUID DECLINES WITH A RISE IN
TEMPERATURE.
Which one is wrong?
When I first read of viscous clutches/couplings that depended on liquids with dramatically increasing viscosities with relatively small increases in temperature I simply thought "well, chalk another BIG "win" up for the scientists".
But VC's really work by increasing a liquid's "effective" viscosity, not their actual viscosity.
The "attack" rate, the rate at which the viscous fluid in a VC increases its coupling coefficient ("effective" viscosity) is controlled by selecting the rate of the fluid's expansion with temperature, the fluid's actual viscosity still declines with a rise in temperature just as you were taught years ago.
Let's put a quart of "fluid" into a container and then heat the fluid from 72F to 110F and assume the fluid's volume rises by 30% Now put that same fluid into a 1 quart SEALED container, and again heat it from 72F to 110F. The fluid's actual viscosity will decline with temperature but in this case (case in both context) of the VC the PRESSURE within the VC has risen tremendously, and that pressure is what increases the coupling coefficient between the two sets of clutch disks.
We just COMPRESSED the "viscous" fluid, thereby increasing its "effective" viscosity.
The manufacturer's can control the VC's coupling coefficient by simply selecting or formulating the viscous fluid to have the appropriate rate of volume increase with temperature. The higher the rate of volume increase of the fluid the higher the attack rate of a given viscous clutch design will be.
The VC has yet another common design parameter, a bubble, literally a bubble of air.
If the manufacturer desires a really fast attack rate, a full and completely operative VC implemented AWD system, such as the one in the Chrysler T&C AWD series, a way must still be provided to delay the initial onset of the rapid coupling coefficient increase such a design would provide.
So, an air bubble of a controlled size is injected into the sealed VC case. The air bubble will be compressed as the VC fluid volume increases, initially, thereby delaying the onset of VC "action" during short or "temporary" disparate rotational rates excursions from turning or braking.
So, as you can see, there can be, literally, an infinite variety of VC implementations. From the "flaccid" HL/RX/RAV4 design, likely filled with common recycled motor oil, to the most elitist design, the one in the Porsche 996 series.
But why do you care?
Under those conditions a lightweight 200HP one wheel drive motorcycle doesn't have any traction problems.
The only reason I hold back from out-and-out agreeing with you is I simply don't know what the effect of disparate final drive ratios front vs rear in the HL/RX might have on torque distribution.
don't take this the wrong way.
I am new to the forum, and want to buy a HL AWD.
Reading your posts on AWD, I got the sense that you had a bad experience with Toyota/Lexus AWD systems and don't like it very much (for some reason).
I have been trying to search the web for a technical description of how the system works.
From what I see - it works as described. Obviously - its not intended for serious off-road.
I keep forgetting to qualify this since it is so very obvious to me. The HL/RX AWD series is NOT qualified to be called AWD in any venue except high traction surfaces where it doesn't matter
anyway.
At the very INSTANT traction is lost on any wheel the torque distribution ratio at that INSTANT will be approximately 90/10 F/R, only after an extended period, hundreds of millseconds, will the torque distribution to the rear wheels begin to increase, and only after many SECONDS of continous wheel slippage will it reach the maximum of 70/30.
IMMHO T/L has avoided the use of a properly set up VC, one with a quick and capable "attack" rate, because to do so would require that they add an over-running clutch to the rear drive train.
If you do not foresee the need for wintertime snow and ice ONROAD AWD use then the FWD RX or the HL will likly suffice.
If you pay the extra money for AWD and come to a time when it is actually needed you will be extremely disappointed.
That didn't jive with what the salesman had told me so I did a few experiments and those led to my discoveries.
IMMHO as far as AWD system capability goes the:
X5 3.x is TOPS
ML320 is next
MDX/Pilot
Ford Escape
I know that last one sounds odd but the Escape is normally FWD, even in "auto" AWD. The Escape AWD is a part-time system (low traction surface use only), center diff'l locked when AWD is "engaged".
The Escape's "automatic" AWD mode is modelled after the Aerostar's. If the ABS electronic sensors indicate a wheel or wheels are slipping due to having lost traction the system instantly converts to the AWD (locked center diff'l) mode for some predetermined period of time, then reverts back to FWD until a wheel slips, etc, etc.
Neither the HL nor the RX make my list, the AWD mode on those are only there so they can charge customers gullible enough the extra fee for a non-functional item.
In the case of LSD - the wheel with grip still gets most of the power.