When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I have a 99 RX300 AWD with 147,500 miles. I bought the car used 3 years and 27,000 miles ago.
So far I have serviced the trans twice. The first time, I had my local shop do a flush, and I used the correct Toyota fluid. They also replaced the filter. The second time, I was at the dealer for an unrelated repair, and they told me "NEVER" do a flush on these transmissions... only "drain and fill".. So the second time, I did just that.
Today the trans works perfectly.. We just got back from a 3,500 mile road trip across the country for the holidays.. no problems.. I'm trying to decide how much further to gamble.. My wife and I really like the car, and over the past year, we've sunk ~$3,000 in various maintenance and repairs (timing belt job, 2 air/fuel sensors, MAF, brakes, tires, etc..)
So I want to know what, if anything, I can do (besides keeping the fluid clean) to preserve the life of this trans.
Many thanks.
So it sounds like you bought 8 year old car with 120K on it. There's a chance the trans has already been rebuilt/replaced unless you knew the previous owner. The good news is if it was done you most likely have the updated parts and are less likely to have future problems. If not, just keep the fluid and filter clean with drain and fills and filter changes at least every 30K. I tend to agree with the dealer who told you never to do a flush. Mine died at 132K shortly after a flush. Of course it could have just been a coincidence.
Even if your trans does go, $3400. (average rebuild price) isn't too much to spend a car you really like.
Just trying to figure out what the 10-15% rate from the magazine scan actually is. If I understand it correctly, it's all major faults in all cars from 2003-2004. Given that the average of all these was 7.5 (5.0%-9.3%) in 2003-2004, that's more than twice the 3% average major transmission failure rate in the 2009 CR online listing. At the end of the day, we think we know what's causing this (as Tomas1 points out) but what we're REALLY interested in is "How likely is this to happen to MY car"?
I see what you are saying and I am not sure I have all the answers. I wish CR gave more specifics on the data but as I said they seem to like to generalize with circles and dots to just to let you know something is better or worse than average. But anyway, following that logic would put the failure rate between 4.65% and 7.4%. As far as "how likely is this to happen to my car?", April is the annual auto issue. We may have some updated numbers then.
So am I to understand the scan you posted shows how to interpret the colored circles of CR.
Now help me relate these circles to RX300 ratings. After 10yrs or 120k+ miles of service, one should expect some problems due to normal wear. I think we should be looking at '94-'97 CR rating of RX300 of model yr '99-'01.
The gear discovery is great, but no one wants to share the date the new parts were introduced.
Salim
Yes the scan is a CR attempt to help interpret the colored circles. You kind of lost me with the rest of the question ('94-'97??) but hopefully between sktn77a's last post and mine the question was answered.
Would be great if you could post the ratings along with the color key. If there are copyright reasons, then it is a different issue. It is very unlikely that we will be able to see problems listed as transmission problem and not others.
My rambling is .. it is only reasonable to look at problem free vehicles for up to 6yrs or 100K miles. Beyond that one should expect problems. With RX300 introduced as '99, we should practically stop looking at ratings past '04-'07 [my post had an error ... which I have fixed]
Well, if I understand CR correctly, they ask hundreds of thousands of subscribers to say if they have had a problem with a certain component of the car (eg transmission). The percent problems is then collated and the averages are shown below (these are the current values from their web site):
So the '99 cars had 3 % average problem rate (O). "Worse than average" (semi black circle) would be greater than 3% compared to other vehicles of that age. So the transmission failure rate of the RX300is > 3% but we don't know how much. Presumably, though, it can't be that much more, so that was where my guess of 3-5% came from.
I read it some where on my research on-line.By 2003 it was almost a non existent problem.See, I think Toyota Motor Co. is being very sneaky with this whole thing. They figured out the problem,and tried keeping it a secret. Probably so they wouldn`t be forced into a recall, I don`t like the way they handled this problem at all. Especially with a high end vehicle such as Lexus.
Any one has additional info from Harrier side of the world?
Salim
I've asked over there, but they don't seem to have the same issues that we do with tranny failures. One thing to keep in mind is that early Harriers often had the 2.2 or 2.4 L engines, not the big 3.0 that we had in the first model years, Harriers did exist in 1997 and 1998.
Now one interesting thing is that the U140F and U140E transmissions along with the 3.0 1MZFE continued to have life in the Toyota Alphard van right up until about 2008 and I also haven't heard issues then, but by then any change would have been apparent.
Would be great if you could post the ratings along with the color key. If there are copyright reasons, then it is a different issue. It is very unlikely that we will be able to see problems listed as transmission problem and not others.
Salim
I am sure I would be violating CR membership agreement if I did a cut and paste of info I obtained with a paid membership. However, I do think it would be OK for me to comment on the trans failures they report. I will do that as soon as they come out with latest info which should be in the next few weeks. Right now the info we are looking at is almost 2 years old. Figuring it was publized almost a year ago and the surrveys used to compile the data went out almost a year before that.
You won't find the chart I posted online. It was scanned from CR mag. The purpose was just to give readers an idea about failure rates for their various ratings. I think CR really tries to avoid getting pinned down to specific numbers. The point they try to get across is that if any particular area is rated with a half black circle or black circle it is progressively worse than average and leave the rest to your interpretation. Remember Lexus is a high end car; so even being rated average in any area is not good. New numbers should be out in the next few weeks. It will be interesting to see what direction they go.
Interesting point. What I find interesting is that outside the LS, the RX and ES are based on Toyota the Camry and are less reliable. However, consumer reports does not show it. Is it becuase the warranty is a year longer and Lexus is able to hide or manipulate the data so that their weaknesses are not published. Forums are full of RX and ES horror stories, yet the Camry and Avalon forums are just minor problems (except for the recent problems with the Camry XLE transmissions).
My "01 tranny was dying out at 160,000 miles. I went to the dealer for a quote and it came to $4600. With tax, the total rounded out to about $5K. Luckily, I knew of a family friend who was a tranny specialist and he did the job for about $2750 and the cars been running like a dream again. I guess the 2010 RX350 will have to wait just a lil while longer.