RX300TC

You just lost all credibilty and I suspect more folks will be turning on you. I asked you some simple questions so that you could back up your claim and you fold. You couldn't answer all of them.

But in your mind you'll twist it around somehow.

willard west

shade tree mechanic testing...

With front wheels on the ground and both rear wheels off the ground and the tranx in park it takes so little effort to turn the other wheel through the rear differential that I cannot measure the torque.

Blocking one rear wheel from turning and with the tranx in neutral it takes 40 ft/lbs to turn the "off the ground" wheel either direction. I verified that the rear driveline turned in synchronization with the wheel.

Left unknown: was the 40 ft/lbs the result of "shearing" the viscous fluid?

So...

Front wheels "chocked" and both rear wheels off the ground.

Just as before, "BUT IN DRIVE" both rear wheels would spin freely and the front would appear to want to climb the chocks with increased engine RPM. Blocking one rear wheel from turning with a clear light pine 1X2, narrow side blocking, simply caused the other rear wheel to turn faster. Blocking both rear wheels in this manner seemingly had no effect at idle and raising the engine RPM to 1500 WHILE IN DRIVE also had no effect, other than the front wheels "wanting" to climb the chocks.

MY Porsche 911 AWD cautions against having a disparate rotational rate across the viscous clutch for more than 20 seconds so I was reluctant to even approach this time boundary. But with the time period I was willing to test there was seemingly no increase in torque delivered to the rear wheels.

In the reverse situation, rear wheels on the ground, chocked, and the front wheels elevated, there was seemingly not enough torque delivered to the rear wheels even at 1500 RPM IN DRIVE that they would appear to want to climb the chocks.

Blocking the front wheels with the 1X2 just as I had the rear appeared to have exactly the same effect, none, at idle. But the INSTANT I touched the throttle WITH THE TRANX IN DRIVE to attempt to raise the engine speed above idle level the left front 1X2 sheared allowing that wheel to rotate freely.

End of test...

My own conclusions...

Lexus/toyota uses the viscous clutch for marketing purposes only, so they can say that they have an AWD vehicle, and as the above test proves, that is not an untruth.

willard west

I would welcome Lexus input on more than one subject, but I think the cards are stacked rather high against our hearing from them.

This past Thanksgiving day my wife and I drove the RX300 over to Yakima and back. Wednesday night we took the company Aerostar (AWD, 30/70 f/r 50/50 after slippage) home in case the pass was to have severe weather.

We decided to trust the RX since the weather on the pass wasn't to be very harsh.

But.. Roadbed conditions are only one thing to fear in a Lexus, the climatic conditions are another thing altogether.

Lexus relies exclusively on the A/C system's ability to dehumidify the incoming airflow in order to prevent and remove condensation on the interior surface of the windshield. But almost anyone can tell you that this method CANNOT work once the incoming airstream is very near, at, or below freezing. The real puzzle for me is this, I have no doubt whatsoever that Lexus is aware of this issue, yet they make no attempt whatsoever to address it, it is up to you and I to know to raise the system temperature setpoint if we want to use the defrost/defog/demist mode effectively at these lower temperatures.

Now, to be fair to Lexus, having an incoming airstream that would be considered relatively humid at these temperatures would be extremely unusual.

But Lexus has arranged for us to bring our own humidity levels to these environments. If you are not very careful to turn off the A/C and also not inadvertantly use it by activating defrost, then you might arrive in these environments carrying your own moisture TIME BOMB.

If you do not somehow prevent it from doing so, the Lexus climate control system will continue to run the A/C compressor, dehumidifying the incoming airflow, and in the process gathering moisture onto the vanes of the evaporator. Once the temperature of the incoming airflow is low enough that the airflow exiting the evaporator core is below the cooling range of the evaporator, the A/C compressor circuit will remain open, it can no longer act to dehumidify the incoming airflow.

But now if the incoming airflow is dry enough it will be humidified as it travels through the super-saturated, moisture clogged, evaporator core. Again in lexus favor, even if the relative humidity of that 35(?) degree F airflow reaches 100%, heating it to 66F will reduce its relative humidity to 30%

So the only problem with that is, remains, an extremely cold interior windshield surface.

So, when I travelled over the pass the other day I took along a 200 watt 12 volt fan/heater so I could "defrost/defog/demist" the windshield without using the Lexus climate control "defrost/defog/demist" mode and thereby accumulating condensed moisture on the evaporator vanes.

And just for safety sake I also took along a relative humidity "alarm" set to go off at 80% RH and placed just at the bottom of the front windshield.

willard west

http://www.airsept.com/eed.html

Eliminates mold, mildew smell at the source and likely a very big help in preventing windshield fogging.

RX300TC

Well, it seems that ***** has been proven wrong on how the 4WD works. And he won't admit it, even after subjecting us to countless, unasked for messages on the subject.

So he insists on posting continous messages about his other so-called expertise, the HVAC system in the Lexus.

Funny thing though, he claims to own an LS also, yet when I check the the LS forum for the past 30 days there doesn't seem to be as much traffic (if at all) regarding his manical postings about the HVAC.

Hmm... I wonder why? Why should us RX owners be the only to suffer his babbling? If he truly has a mission to "educate" all us poor unspecting souls, why isn't he posting in the LS forum also?

Seems to indicate that he's tasting sour grapes and is trying get back at us for making him eat crow.

You be the judge...

willard west

On Edmunds town hall I read and interact on the following threads:

RX300, Lexus LS, Lexus GS, Porsche advice, 4WD explained (2), highlander.

On Clublexus I try to check into:

GS300/400/430, Sc300/400, LS400/ 430, RX300, maintenance, and driving experiences.

I try to answer questions which come up of which I have knowledge and so I have not authored many threads.

My primary automotive interests are HVAC (windshield defogging, musty smell, human comfort via radiant heating/cooling), GPS Nav, VSC, TRAC, and 4WD/AWD/RWD/FWD.

bioart

I understand the way you are testing the torque, however, something sounds fishy to me:

You are doing these tests while the vehicle is in neutral/park, however, isnt this irrelevant to the claim of AWD? The whole idea of AWD is for it to work while you are moving. I see no point in the system being optimized for neutral/park since I can think of few times to need that.

It is entirely possible (and quite plausible) that the system was designed to work while the vehicle is in drive and/or motion.

I dont discount your testing results, but I dont think you are testing the right conditions. Just it doesnt work the way you test the system, doesnt mean it doesnt work under the intended conditions. A better test would be do it while the vehicle was in drive, with all wheels moving and then trying to somehow slow one of them to measure the effect.

It sounds like correct test would be a lot more involved than what you have done so far.

Art

willard west

I put my foot very firmly on the brake, eased the transmission into drive, took my foot slowly off the brake and then started very slowly and in very slight increments depressing the accelerator.

You're absolute right, nothing would be proven in neutral or park. Sorry I didn't mention that, I thought, assumed, everyone would take it for granted.

SORRY IF IT WAS SOMEWHAT MISLEADING, I WENT BACK AND EDITED THE POST TO MAKE IT MORE EXPLICIT.

And guess what? I lucked out.

Just down the road aways in little old Redmond is a shop with an AWD capable automotive dynamometer which they "lease" to customers. I'll set up an appointment this week.

RX300TC

Your last chance to redeem yourself *****. Ready?

You have stated that the reason why you go on and on is that you want to educate and help people, and to put pressure on Lexus to change for the better.

There will be two possible outcomes to your testing:

1. The RX does not deliver near 50/50 torque to the front/back under normal driving conditions. If true, why don't you make the results and documentation available to anyone who wants it so they can sue Lexus or at least cause them some action to provide retribution or retraction? That would be the stand-up thing to do, it's called being a decent guy who wants to help others.

2. The RX does perform as stated by Lexus. At this point you should apologize for distracting so many message boards with errant information. That would be the stand-up thing to do, it's called being a man.

We all await your results....

willard west

I fully expect that the dyno testing will indicate that my previous testing results are valid, but if they are not then you will be the first to hear.

But in any case what have I to apologize for?

And what is there that you think you can sue Lexus for even if I am proven to be correct.

Lexus hasn't lied, they may have fudged the truth a little bit by not telling the full and complete story but in reality that's where I come in. I've simply been trying to get at the truth of the overall operation of the LEXUS RX300 AWD system.

There is nothing that I have seen published by Lexus that isn't more true than false. They may have walked very close to the edge of that precipice but they haven't fallen over.

One could say that a vehicle simply equipped with three open differentials, front, rear, and center, has a 50/50 split front to rear and just "leave it" right there and that would be the absolute truth. They wouldn't have to go on a say, "but, if any wheel or wheels lose traction, all of the torque will be routed to that/those wheels".

Yes, Lexus does have a VC thrown in there, but what is it made of?

As you saw, Lexus says the description of their VC is "from the dictionary". That certain leaves them a lot of leeway, doesn't it?

Reminds me of a certain USAF recruiter back in 57.

Oh, and the RX likely does deliver a 50/50 torque split F/R under "normal" driving conditions. If you define normal as I would, even living as I do here in the great Pacific Northwest, "having high traction surfaces for all four tires to "drive" on".

RX300TC

My lord, you are worst than a politician the way you squirm out of things.

You really do live in your own little world, don't you? Your wife must be a saint to put up with you.

redjeeper

As the owner of an older model Jeep Grand Cherokee, I must state that the RX300 is not meant to go offroad like a Hummer. It is merely supposed to be an onroad vehicle that can occasionally go off a dirt road, nothing more. Willard, I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Who Cares". If you want that kind of AWD, get a vehicle that is made for that. Just my .02

willard west

But maybe some of you would consider this off-road.

Here in the Great Pacific Northwest in the wintertime we consider it EVERYDAY driving.

Yesterday my wife and I took our daughter and our three GRANDkids up to Snoqualmie Pass to play in the snow. Since there were seven of us I couldn't take the 2001 RX AWD so I borrowed the company's AWD Aerostar.

Driving into the upper parking lot at the summit became a challenge, one after another I watched as vehicles had to give up the "climb", back down and turn around.

A Dodge/Chrysler FWD minivan was first, almost made it but then lost traction and never regained it. Honda Odessey next, even less success. Toyota HL, couldn't tell the model, didn't even make it to mid-point. Aerostar not only did fine there but went all the way up to the third parking area.

Our youngest grandson soon got too cold and my wife and I returned with him to the car. My curosity got the best of me so I cruised the lower parking area until a parking spot opened up within sight of the bottom of the first incline.

Lots and lots of vehicles couldn't pull the incline, most of them recognizably FWD. Quite a few vehicles did make it but some that didn't were quite a surprise.

An 01 or 02 (VSC badge) RX AWD. He was clearly having trouble on the incline but he wasn't going to give up easily. I finally got out of our car and walked over to help by pushing and of course this made him just a little peeved. He finally had to give up and back down the incline.

It was clear that his rear wheels were "driving", but apparently not enough to be of any help. I thought that I could also hear the TRAC "thumping".

But the real surprise of the day was a late model 4runner that couldn't pull the incline. That driver was REALLY peeved. He even put in "low" range before he finally gave up.

Absolutely no one seemed to have any trouble (driving, walking is another story)within the snow and ice packed LEVEL parking areas.

The incline:

Maybe 5% or less, and about 25 yards, packed snow and ice with some gravel and sand. We arrived late in the day, around 2 PM, and I'm sure the incline had been sanded early that morning but by now there was clearly more slippery surface than otherwise.

It was so slippery in the center that you couldn't walk on it without falling and I watched several kids slid down the center of the incline in their ski boots.

Why did the Aerostar do so well, equipped with simple summer tires, over others that shouldn't have failed? I don't know enough to be really sure but I suspect it was the fact that the Aerostar is basically RWD, 30/70, and switches to 50/50 if the rear wheels begine to slip.

But why didn't the 4runner make it? The driver was using a conservative approach, not gunning it like most would.

I'm wondering if this new type of LSD, using the brakes for implementation, just isn't up to these types of challenges. The reports I keep hearing is if you aren't carrying enough forward momentum when you hit a slippery area then you dead in the (frozen) water.

Is there anyone out there with this type of experience with the ML?

RX300TC

Gee, maybe you'd have a better chance of having this answered on an MB discussion board? Oh, I forgot, the real purpose is to spam the same message of yours everywhere you please. Sort of like a an animal that isn't house broken.

Sooner

he is and idiot who needs to find better things to do with his time than talk out of his a**.it is getting very old.he should just shut his pie hole and get rid of the vehicle if he doesn't like it,he seems like the only one.go get your ml320 and bug eveyone on their board and leave ours alone.but he'll be back when he realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.thats my 2 cents.go away meatswordsman!!!!!:0