Red5

I see you own a Valkyrie- I was once in a zombie movie riding a Valkyrie. (Bad Moon Rising) Thinking about selling my FXDX and buying one.




They are about 2-3k apart. Would it be worth the extra? What does the 330 offer that the 300 doesn't have?

99rx

iTrader: (6)

Bigger motor, completely redesigned. If I was you, I would go for a 330.

thomas1

The RX330 offers less transmission issues, also a second generation of the RX series...Many of us prefer the first generation however, the leather seems better, the visablility is better. Tough decision. They both require timing belts. Either one is a plus, but I would look for a 2002-2003 RX300, just a lot of problems gone on these models.

Lexmex

The biggy for me with the 330 over the 300 is a vastly superior turning radius. If there's one pet peeve that I have is that the RX300 may be similar in many ways to driving a car (like the Camry), but the turning radius often requires 3 point turns and u-turns can mean arriving in the furthest lane to the right. It's also got an automatic rear door (you don't need to raise by your own hands). A little more power in the engine (but not really noticeable) and IMHO a better interior. I am not keen on the back-end X5 styling (I always loved that of the RX300 over anything Lexus has put out since in the RX-series).

jbl-1985

HA!! Love my Valkyrie. No offense, but I never bought into the Harley thing. At the time I bought my Honda, it was make in Ohio and cost about $6k less than a Harley equivalent (which is odd because IMHO, there is no equivalent to the Valk). I check in the paper from time to time to see if anyone is selling them, and I rarely see any up for sale. As you might know, they don't make the Valks anymore and this might make them a little more hard to come by, or, if they're like me, they love the bike and would never sell it!


On the 300 vs 330: With all of the noise about the transmissions on the 300, I might opt to go for a 330, which does not have the tranny issues that some of the RX300 owners have reported. I have a '99, and have drained and filled every 20k miles because of this and at 65k miles, she drives and shifts like new. Understandably, I don't have a lot of miles on that car either so who knows what will or will not happen as she ages. I love BOTH my 300 and my 330 otherwise. The 330 had some standard features such as the electric rear hatch and it does have a little bit bigger engine with a little more punch, but the RX's are not known for their get up and go by any means....good luck.

Lexmex

I will also second on the transmission. My own opinion is that the U140 tranny should have been much beefed up on the RX300 (was so on the 2001-03 models), but the RX330, the U151, is more suited to such a vehicle.

Red5

Non taken. I've owned about 97 bikes in my life. Mostly trace type bikes. But I recently did the Harley thing. And I have to admit that it is going to be tough to go back. It's now about performance by any means. Something about the ride.. the feel, the sound, the smiles.. And bending two girls over the tank in one week wasn't bad either.

But you are oh so right when you say: there is no equivalent to the Valk. There isn't. Like nothing. I'm looking at one next week.

So now I'm looking at the 330's. But the fun part of me is screaming to couph up the extra and buy a Cayenne Turbo.

lexus114

I don't like the XC90, their frumpy looking. They couldn't seem to make up their mind if they wanted it to be a station wagon, or a more cross over looking vehicle. Their result; a station wagon on steroids.

Ramblemutt

I've had my RX300 for less than a month now and no buyer's remorse so far..I'm quite pleased with it. Did a lot of research and my 3 finalists were the Volvo XC70, RX300, and Toyota Highlander. All were available in my budget parameters (less than $10K). My independent mechanic of 20+ years, who takes care of just about every car (older than 5 years) within a 30 mile radius of our popular ski resort (lots of mountain driving and 4 very distinct seasons) town...also has a stellar rep....says that of all the 1st gen RX customers he has, very few have come in with tranny problems. He also said stay away from the XC90, but a good XC70 is well worth looking at tho a bit pricey to maintain. The Highlander, of course, is a solid Toyota and as reliable as the RX in his opinion. So I settled on the best RX or Highlander I could find. Yeah, the antenna malfunctions and I have a droopy sun visor. I did a cheap fix on the latter and seldom listen to the radio (my books on CD work just fine), so I'm a happy Lexus owner at the moment. Good luck.
Should add that the seller threw in a 90 day full drive train warranty and I'm working the tranny over pretty good...we'll find out if there's a problem. The RX has 114K miles on it and the timing belt and water pump changed out at 87K miles.

kalali

Get a late model Subaru....That would be my advice.

RXGS

iTrader: (2)

Both are nice cars, and both have transmissions issues. Lexus ones do mainly do to poor servicing, volvo used a really ****ty gm unit and would be replaced almost every 50k on average.

nguluni

Funny enought i was trying to decide between XC90, RX330, highlander, GX470... ended up buying
2005 Lexus RX330 with 50 miles for $15k...so far so good but i think i need to change the tires, they are kinda noisy.

markellyc

I bought my 2000 RX300 Dec 7th. So far I love it, but there are a few little problems with it like the cup holder and turning radius.

I looked at the XC90 however my mechanic said the RX was a much better SUV. Good luck with your RX330, I'm now eyeballing one for my wife.

FilPilot

did you post this question on the Volvo forum also?

if so it would be kinda intresting to see what they would say.

Lexus is a better vehicle....