josephdoc

All manufacturers are moving into the hybrid age.

Get the hybrid on this model regardless about performance. It is for the future resell valve and save Earth.

HarrierAWD

For safety sake, I think it's worth mentioning that the RX 400h's 70 to 0 dry braking distance is a lousy 200 ft according to C&D. Similar to a cement truck. It's probably due to the battery weight and low friction tires. The RX330/350 is in the 180 range.

Battousai

again, those who brought the 400H would not acknowlege that 350 is better or at least the gap between the two isn't what they made it to be (not huge).

personally i love my rx350 and i assume the same with 400h owner. I did once considered the 400h, but with the premium on the hybrid plus the return on gas saving isn't that great (at least 5 years, by then who knows, i might be driving the next RX). The nav system is night and day from the rx350 to the 400h. Not to mention 400h is 2006 model, not sure if they even going to have a 2007 version, as many indicated the sales for 400h has declined and not strong at all. my rx350 is 2007, i have yet to break into that year, meaning if i do plan to sell the car, it would have one extra year hidden and cheaper comparing with 400h.

performance, i really didn't get RX SUV for its "faster driving or performance on how quick it could be". the different between 350 and 400h is not that significant in term of real world driving. if i am looking for a faster better handling or what have u, i would go for a X5, GS or even the new ES350.

people who got the 400h, i assumed, was looking for the fuel efficient logo "saving you gas" type mentality. quite frankly if u can afford a brand new RX, then that 27miles per gallon on 400h vs 24 miles per gallon on 350, really make that big of a different?

rcf8000

The August C & D has a piece on the RX350. They measured 6.8 seconds 0-60 (awd) . This compares to 6.9 seconds that they previously got with the RX400h. I presume that an fwd RX350 would be even quicker. (For some reason, the magazines never test the fwd or rwd versions of SUVs.)

DocTDC

I agree with the "save the earth" part. Even if real life fuel savings is only 4-5mpg, every bit helps.

I'm gonna have to disagree with the resale value. I read an article (I think it was on edmunds, I'll go back and look for it) which predicted lower resale value for Hybrids. They sited higher future maintenance cost as the main reason. On a vehicle like the RX, you'll have to keep your car 6-7 years to break even on the fuel savings vs extra cost of the vehicle. Not to mention the 2007 vs 2006 brand and the newer nav system with the 2007 RX350.

Really the only reason to go with the 400 is to try to do your part to "save the earth", which is very admirable. The 400 is obviously a great car and I would recommend it to anyone. The 350 is also a great car, and I would recommend that to everyone as well.

DocTDC

CrazyMPG

iTrader: (4)

Is the RX400h and the RX350 have the same emission levels? like SULEV, ULEV...don't know if they are the same...cuz green house gases are pretty bad...weather has been changing every year...

400H

We went with the 400H vs. the 350 because on a lease they had better deals on the 400H. We still get the tax credit, and the price was very close between the two vehicles. The 350 did not have the NAV system, FWD vs. AWD, fewer options for the same money ($20 per month diff.)

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

So after all the cards are finially out for the RX400H and RX350, it would be safe to assume that the sole reason to buy an RX400H over the RX350 would be an environmental one right? The performance is a wash and about even as many have predicted, the MPG efficiency doesn't appear to balance out the higher $4-5K price jump either. I think it is a perfect car for those that seriously into the environmental benefit the RX400H has to offer.

However, since the title of this topic is about performance differences, I'd have to say from that point of view the RX350 is the clear winner especially factoring in the lower price.