dug320

Long time lurker and nearly ready to take the plunge of a RX3xx.

I am looking at a 2002 AWD. Does this year suffer from transmission issues similar to the rates from previous years?

Is there a best year of the 1999-2003 design?

hypervish

after late year 2000, your good... It's best to be safe and go 2001 and on.

JAB

The newer the better. And, 2001 (or 2002, I'm not sure) has the newer taillights, which improves the rear appearance (and illumination) considerably, in my opinion.

hypervish

It's 2001 with the upgraded taillights.

Russ White

My 2001 suffered a failed transmission at 131,000. It was FWD. Good luck.

hypervish

It's likely your failure was an isolated case. Did you change the fluids every 15k? And, use the handbrake when necessary?

Russ White

Yes to both questions. Do some net searching and if are satisfied it was isolated, well you are entitled to your opinion. Good Luck, Russ

lserlohn

My god. I thought by changing transmission fluid, this problem would be avoid.

Did you always put heavy load on the car?

Russ White

Obviously I hoped drain and fill would do the job too, it just didn't.
I did tow a personal watercraft on one trip from Tennessee to Florida. Not many hills on that trip and a PWC is a pretty light load. Otherwise, conservative driving. If I was in a hurry I took the Ferrari or the NSX. Bottom line, I probably would not purchase a first generation RX300 due to transmission and sluge issues. Nothing happens to everyone and I sincerely hope you have better luck. Russ

JAB

Transmission failures in early RX300, particularly AWD, are hardly 'isolated cases.'

lserlohn

Hi, could you recall any symptom before the transmission failure?

hypervish

Depends on the way you look at it, you only see complaints on the internet. People don't go online to rave about how amazing their transmission is. The RX300 may have a higher transmission failure rate than other's car's for these two particular years, but many many many RX's are still on the original transmission.

If there were really so many failures, then toyota would have instated a recall, or a price reduction of some sort rather than just a loyal customer reduction. Obviously, the problem isn't as big as it looks....But whatever, you can either look at the glass half-full or half-empty.

sktn77a

iTrader: (2)

If you looked at the consumer reports listing a couple of years ago when it went back to 1999, you would have seen the RX300 "Major Transmission Problems" entry going from: much better than average (2002), to better than average (2001), to average (2000), to worse than average (1999). I suspect if they continued them back to 1999 today, it would read: better than average (2002), average (2001), worse than average (2000), much worse than average (1999).

I doubt it.

hypervish

Toyota extended warranty for sludge didn't they.... so if they thought that this issue was bad enough they would have gave some sort of incentive.

Either way, it's a known fact these RX's have an issue with transmission failures. It's probably better that we talk about how to prevent this rather than "argue" over whether it was due to lack of maintenance or just bad design, or some of both. (i use the term argue, very lightly in this context)

JAB

Fact is that in 1999 at least, unless the vehicle was routinely operated in adverse conditions (e.g. trailer towing, dusty conditions, extended idling) there was NO recommended interval for changing the automatic transmission fluid.