tarheelrx

Hi All-
My wife and I are still trying to decide between the two cars, and wanted to hear points of people that were deciding between these two. Granted one is a SUV and one a car, but were there other reasons that made people lean one way or the other. Pricing is not too much of an issue as both can be had for under invoice right now... thanks for the input.

bob2200

I have a 2002 RX300 and my mother has a 2002 ES300, so I'm familiar with both. I really like the RX300 much better.

The ES300 recommends 91 octane (super premium) gasoline and the RX300 87 octane (regular). Some people don't like the new indexed shifter configuration of the 2002 ES300, and the lack of space to stow a woman's pocketbook. I also like the magazine-loaded CD-player in the RX300, over the front loaded type in the ES300.

I guess I'm biased, but I don't see why anyone would choose the ES300 over the RX300, other than looks. The RX300 is like 6 inches shorter in length, about 8 inches taller, and the same width; as I recall. The weight is a few hundred pounds more, for the 2-wheel drive configuration.

Daddy-O

I recently drove the 2003 ES 300 as a loaner while getting my RX 300 serviced. Here's whta I posted in the ES 300 forum:

I had service on my RX today and asked for an IS loaner (They only have one),
so when I was told that, I asked for an ES, 2002 or later.

Millenium Silver 2003 ES 300, Premium Package
Light Charcoal Leather Trim with California Burled Walnut

What a nice ride. I had only a few issues, compared to my RX. Please understand,
I am biased..and these are mostly little things. They're just my impressions in no
particular order of importance

Pros
• Mileage. Wow! I averaged 27.3mpg in mixed driving
• Legroom. More than the RX, (for now)
• Quiet. Better than the RX, but it should be, eh?
• 5 speed Tranny. It took 50 miles to get used to it, but very smooth and responsive
• Arm rests. Just where I like them.
• Stereo. When the mix was correct, it would pump!

Cons
• Headlights. Are they on?
• Headroom. I'm 6' tall and my curly hair was brushing against the roof
• Stereo. Hard to find the right settings. Not enough bass and a little too much treble most of the time.
• Window sill is too high to rest my arm on.
• Reset button on steering wheel. Push it and nothing happens, until you let it go. In the RX, you push it and 2 seconds later it resets. Then you let it go. Just my taste here.

Overall, I enjoyed it. My brother has 2 of them, so I have experience in the ES.
It was one of my top five finalists when I bought the RX.

Lil4X

I agree with Daddy both are excellent vehicles, but some differences depend on your application. The RX has the edge in ground clearance and is available with AWD, if you plan on doing any light-duty off-roading, or if you are likely to encounter marginal weather. Cargo capacity is considerably greater in the RX, and on that subject, the RX's liftgate is much handier for loading groceries, etc. without the stoop and reach of the ES. The RX is a fine tourer but no rockhopper, so don't believe the hype about taking any lux SUV into the boonies. The ES is slightly quieter, but that may relate more to the tire selection than anything else. Naturally, the greater weight and frontal area of the RX makes it a wee bit thirstier, especially in the AWD versions. These general observations should apply to 2000 - 2004 versions of either model. Overall, you can't go wrong with either - it's the difference between chocolate and vanilla. Good hunting!

Francis

I still don’t understand even my 99’ RX has 220hp but 03’ ES/Camry only have 210hp. I know Toyota/Lexus are the best on quality but they should also give more hp!