1WILLY1

iTrader: (9)

Hey guys

considering selling my ls430 for an rx300

Ive been using my ls430 as a work vehicle for nearly 3 years, its super smooth and comfy, but it of course lacks storage space, and my backseat never gets used.

I was wondering, has anyone removed the rear seats on the RX in order to give it much more cargo space? Any reasons why this would not be possible ?

Any other issues I should know about with the 300's? Im looking for long term reliability mainly, gas mileage is a factor as well but im assuming the v6 wont be too bad.

im seeing a few Rx300's with lower mileage for a lot chjeaper then I thought, which is why im almost ready to pull the trigger

Thanks in advance

salimshah

Browse through the sticky threads.

Rx300 are pretty dated now and have been refined over time. Personally I still prefer the styling of the First gen and early models (not a fan of bling around the tail lights). Milage increases the war, but time has its toll. Do get a maintenance history.

The rear seats fold down providing a flat surface. Trunk carpet and the back of the rear seats is one continues material and removing the rear seat would require cutting and you will have to deal with the step down once you remove the rear bottoms.


Good luck with your decision. Milage is typically around 18mpg.

Salim

2KHarrier

As an owner of two LS430's and the previous owner of a 2000 RX300, I believe I can comment here... The LS is by far one of the most reliable, trouble free, comfortable cars available. The RX (at least the 1st gen from 00-03) had their share of problems. From oil consumption, to transmission woes, poor fuel economy and seat wear issues, many RX's on the market are fairly worn out. Mine was a one owner that I bought with 140K on the ODO and it came with full service history from Lexus. I was one of the lucky ones in that respect.

There are clean, lower mileage examples out there that will give you many years of service, but the RX requires maintenance attention that the LS series never would.

True, they are two completely different animals, but since you are considering changing from one to the other, a slight comparion is in order.

I did love the room inside the RX with the seats down. Not like a Suburban, but big enough for hat we needed. Mine was AWD, which was great in the winter months. The LS can be a little sketchy in the snow...

Where I would get 21-22 MPG on the freeway with the RX, I'm routinely getting 28 MPG with the LS. The engine is just much better suited in the LS, and since the RX was based on the Camry platform, the engine is slightly anemic.

The leather doesn't seem to hold up in RX, as quite a few of them I've seen have rough looking front seats. Mine was starting to wear pretty well when we sold it, but I didn't have any tears at that point.
The seats on the LS are a much higher quality leather, and it wears better. Also, you're not climbing into the LS and rubbing along the outboard edge of the seat every time you enter and exit. That does make a difference.

Suspension parts tend to need more attention, or at least on my car they did...

The big one is the oil consumption problem with the early RX300's By 2002 they had improved the PCV system and the oil issues were almost non existent. There are a couple great threads on the rear valve cover and replacing it to improve oil scavenging issues. I changed the rear cover on mine and saw an almost immediate decrease in oil consumption. The LS really has no oil issues at all, other than occasional leaky valve cover gaskets.

Transmissions tend to suffer from the planetary gear ring breaking, due to the compact design of the transmission. I never had any issues with mine. The LS trans is just about bullet proof, as you know..

So, that's about all I can say on the subject.

salimshah

Oh , I forgot to mention the very obvious..

LS --> flagship
RX -> Entry level SUV

Rear wheel drive vs FWD ... AWD is mostly FWD.

Early RX was put together from existing toyota/Lexus lineup.

LS was built from scratch after studying competitor offerings.

Transverse mounted engine vs Front to back.


Salim
ps: While there are folks who have had problem with transmission and oil gel/consumption ,,, there are plenty of trouble free RX. Supporting evidence is ... look at the number of old RX still on the road.

hypervish

I would suggest keeping the LS430 simply because its the flagship vehicle and designed as such. That's not to say the RX300 is a bad vehicle, but you already have a car whose history you know about. The newest RX300 is now 13 years old so they are getting up their in age. But to Salim's point, there are many RX300 still on the road, of which there are plenty high mileage (i.e. over 200k miles) with very few issues.

For instance, I have 238k miles with original engine/tranny and no oil gel or consumption issues. Don't let the interwebs fool you.

Lexmus

Based on my experience and many who have commented on this forum, if the RX will not be driven at interstate-type speeds, then oil consumption should not be a major issue even with the valve cover issue. Mine burns minimal oil with around town driving, but is a pretty severe oil burner when driven on the interstate.

sktn77a

iTrader: (2)

The two vehicles to do entirely different jobs. Those the LS does well you won't be satisfied with in the RX (comfort, quality, etc). Those the RX does well (Space, AWD - albeit 75% FWD), the LS just can't do. Given that you can pick up a very nice 99 or 00 RX for about $3000-$4000, why not have both (see my sig)?

1WILLY1

iTrader: (9)

Thanks guys

I thought long and hard about it and I decided to just fix up the LS, it needed front wheel bearings and just a good cleaning and detailing.

The reason I was considering it was I was finding some incredibly cheap Rx's on the market, under 100 000 miles and I could pick them up for like $3000 or so,,it was temtping

But the LS really is super smooth and reliable so I will stick with it for another year aor so and see how it goes from there

thanks again