2019 Lexus RX350 review

[edyvw]

Quote
So...about them longitudinal engines...we are STILL waiting...

As to cx5 vs glc300, what possible selling point does the GLC have beyond "I hAvE an Mb!"?

When you buy real car like your neighbor, you will get an answer.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
So...about them longitudinal engines...we are STILL waiting...

As to cx5 vs glc300, what possible selling point does the GLC have beyond "I hAvE an Mb!"?

When you buy real car like your neighbor, you will get an answer.


ROFL!

When I want some unrefined, rough-riding buzzbox (69dB at 70!) that struggles to get "meh" reliability ratings from CR, I'll give the 3rd-world produced GLC platform a look.

(It's almost like you've never actually even been around/in any of the vehicles you're talking about on here...in fact, please, try to articulate why the louder, less reliable car that gets worse mpg, is slower, and somehow manages to cost more with identical features more or less MUST be the better buy...? Oh. That's right. You can't. You'll rely on appeals to tradition and throwing some shade that you don't even understand to avoid actually talking about reliability, dB at 70mph, road tests, or even just personal anecdotal experience, etc. So I guess if you can't say it with numbers, just spare use the drivel, kindly, good sir!)


All that aside, thanks for finally admitting that you're clueless, ran your mouth without evidence, and have no idea what you're talking about, when it comes to vehicle architecture.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
So...about them longitudinal engines...we are STILL waiting...

As to cx5 vs glc300, what possible selling point does the GLC have beyond "I hAvE an Mb!"?

When you buy real car like your neighbor, you will get an answer.


ROFL!

When I want some unrefined, rough-riding buzzbox (69dB at 70!) that struggles to get "meh" reliability ratings from CR, I'll give the 3rd-world produced GLC platform a look.

(It's almost like you've never actually even been around/in any of the vehicles you're talking about on here...in fact, please, try to articulate why the louder, less reliable car that gets worse mpg, is slower, and somehow manages to cost more with identical features more or less MUST be the better buy...? Oh. That's right. You can't. You'll rely on appeals to tradition and throwing some shade that you don't even understand to avoid actually talking about reliability, dB at 70mph, road tests, or even just personal anecdotal experience, etc. So I guess if you can't say it with numbers, just spare use the drivel, kindly, good sir!)


All that aside, thanks for finally admitting that you're clueless, ran your mouth without evidence, and have no idea what you're talking about, when it comes to vehicle architecture.

Of course I have been around them, at least MB, Mazda is not worth of trip to try.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
So...about them longitudinal engines...we are STILL waiting...

As to cx5 vs glc300, what possible selling point does the GLC have beyond "I hAvE an Mb!"?

When you buy real car like your neighbor, you will get an answer.


ROFL!

When I want some unrefined, rough-riding buzzbox (69dB at 70!) that struggles to get "meh" reliability ratings from CR, I'll give the 3rd-world produced GLC platform a look.

(It's almost like you've never actually even been around/in any of the vehicles you're talking about on here...in fact, please, try to articulate why the louder, less reliable car that gets worse mpg, is slower, and somehow manages to cost more with identical features more or less MUST be the better buy...? Oh. That's right. You can't. You'll rely on appeals to tradition and throwing some shade that you don't even understand to avoid actually talking about reliability, dB at 70mph, road tests, or even just personal anecdotal experience, etc. So I guess if you can't say it with numbers, just spare use the drivel, kindly, good sir!)


All that aside, thanks for finally admitting that you're clueless, ran your mouth without evidence, and have no idea what you're talking about, when it comes to vehicle architecture.

Of course I have been around them, at least MB, Mazda is not worth of trip to try.


Lol, and this is the problem. Your contempt stems from ignorance, like most of what you post. The Mazda is better, regardless of price, when compared to the GLC series (except amg, and then, only if brute speed and max skidpad are the factors, it's still a quieter and more refined ride). The MB sedans are excellent. The GLC just seems...meh. Audi would be a much better 3rd world CUV, if that's what you're into. I only buy JDM product though. At least the Audi is faster and quieter than the mazda, but not by as large a margin as the mazda ousts the GLC in the same regards. MB dropped the ball. Their forums are full of "wind noise...ratttles... harsh suspension feel..." in the GLC section, and experience with the GLC I have had jives with that. It rode like my 2015 cx5 with over 100k miles on it regarding rattles. Which is to say not bad but worse than youd expect from a new GLC).

In short...step out of the early 2000s. Go educate yourself. Get some experience that's relevant. I bet you still thought Audi q5 and MB GLC were made in europe, lol!

...and while you're at it, why dont you educate US on why luxury cars must have longitudinal engines...rofl! Oh...wait...you dont know. You just spouted off.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Lol, and this is the problem. Your contempt stems from ignorance, like most of what you post. The Mazda is better, regardless of price, when compared to the GLC series (except amg, and then, only if brute speed and max skidpad are the factors, it's still a quieter and more refined ride). The MB sedans are excellent. The GLC just seems...meh. Audi would be a much better 3rd world CUV, if that's what you're into. I only buy JDM product though. At least the Audi is faster and quieter than the mazda, but not by as large a margin as the mazda ousts the GLC in the same regards. MB dropped the ball. Their forums are full of "wind noise...ratttles... harsh suspension feel..." in the GLC section, and experience with the GLC I have had jives with that. It rode like my 2015 cx5 with over 100k miles on it regarding rattles. Which is to say not bad but worse than youd expect from a new GLC).

In short...step out of the early 2000s. Go educate yourself. Get some experience that's relevant. I bet you still thought Audi q5 and MB GLC were made in europe, lol!

...and while you're at it, why dont you educate US on why luxury cars must have longitudinal engines...rofl! Oh...wait...you dont know. You just spouted off.

Man, you are person drenched in nitroglycerine running through forest fire.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
Lol, and this is the problem. Your contempt stems from ignorance, like most of what you post. The Mazda is better, regardless of price, when compared to the GLC series (except amg, and then, only if brute speed and max skidpad are the factors, it's still a quieter and more refined ride). The MB sedans are excellent. The GLC just seems...meh. Audi would be a much better 3rd world CUV, if that's what you're into. I only buy JDM product though. At least the Audi is faster and quieter than the mazda, but not by as large a margin as the mazda ousts the GLC in the same regards. MB dropped the ball. Their forums are full of "wind noise...ratttles... harsh suspension feel..." in the GLC section, and experience with the GLC I have had jives with that. It rode like my 2015 cx5 with over 100k miles on it regarding rattles. Which is to say not bad but worse than youd expect from a new GLC).

In short...step out of the early 2000s. Go educate yourself. Get some experience that's relevant. I bet you still thought Audi q5 and MB GLC were made in europe, lol!

...and while you're at it, why dont you educate US on why luxury cars must have longitudinal engines...rofl! Oh...wait...you dont know. You just spouted off.

Man, you are person drenched in nitroglycerine running through forest fire.

And you're a person making claims you cant back up, substantiate, or defend.

 

[RTexasF]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by RTexasF
The RX350 has been rated for 87 octane fuel since 2012.....so much for those recommending premium fuel.

Does it offer more power with 91/93, like GM and Mazda and Subaru?


No idea. Does it really matter with 295 HP on 87 octane?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by RTexasF
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by RTexasF
The RX350 has been rated for 87 octane fuel since 2012.....so much for those recommending premium fuel.

Does it offer more power with 91/93, like GM and Mazda and Subaru?


No idea. Does it really matter with 295 HP on 87 octane?

Yes, its slowest in its class by a long shot

 

[PWMDMD]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by RTexasF
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by RTexasF
The RX350 has been rated for 87 octane fuel since 2012.....so much for those recommending premium fuel.

Does it offer more power with 91/93, like GM and Mazda and Subaru?


No idea. Does it really matter with 295 HP on 87 octane?

Yes, its slowest in its class by a long shot


It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted by PWMDMD

It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.


At the end of the day, the RX is much less likely to give you problems than the Pilot. The Honda VCM V6 engines do not have a great history and adding DI only makes the situation worse.

 

[PWMDMD]

Originally Posted by The Critic
Originally Posted by PWMDMD

It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.


At the end of the day, the RX is much less likely to give you problems than the Pilot. The Honda VCM V6 engines do not have a great history and adding DI only makes the situation worse.


Yeah disabled the VCM with only 200 mile on the engine. Hoping that improves longevity.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by The Critic
Originally Posted by PWMDMD

It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.


At the end of the day, the RX is much less likely to give you problems than the Pilot. The Honda VCM V6 engines do not have a great history and adding DI only makes the situation worse.


Also, a 2003 Toyota 4Runner will slaughter them all for reliability. Shall we all hold it in higher regard?
Originally Posted by The Critic
Originally Posted by PWMDMD

It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.


At the end of the day, the RX is much less likely to give you problems than the Pilot. The Honda VCM V6 engines do not have a great history and adding DI only makes the situation worse.



At the end of the day, the RX needs to step it up to remain class competitive in the "go" department.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

Because RX is rolling on outdated and not at all sophisticated platform from Highlander/Sienna. So, it is packing weight. Honda on other hand with new Pilot seriously shedded weight. I think AWD Pilot is like 4,250lbs. It is by far fastest SUV among appliance soccer mom SUV's.
Also, while Honda had issues with 9 speed due to software, there is no Aisin that will ever match speed of ZF transmission.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

Because RX is rolling on outdated and not at all sophisticated platform from Highlander/Sienna. So, it is packing weight. Honda on other hand with new Pilot seriously shedded weight. I think AWD Pilot is like 4,250lbs. It is by far fastest SUV among appliance soccer mom SUV's.
Also, while Honda had issues with 9 speed due to software, there is no Aisin that will ever match speed of ZF transmission.


Maybe that's what's wrong with the Acura RDX. It has good power to weight, and 10 gears, but it's not any faster than the other cross-overs in its class.

That said, the X3 has a ZF 8-speed in it:

Pilot:
4300# curb, 280hp, 0-60 in 6.3, 1/4 mile in [email protected]
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/pilot/2019/2019-honda-pilot-elite-first-test-review/
X3:
4300# curb, 248hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile in 14.9@94mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19460227/2018-bmw-x3-xdrive30i-test-review/

That ZF transmission seems worth a good 30hp, lol!


Here's the Acura RDX A-spec:

3997# (I rounded the others to the nearest 50#), 272hp, 0-60 in 6.6, 1/4 mile in 15.2@93mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22805391/2019-acura-rdx-a-spec-value-not-performance/

Oh, and just to annoy the [censored] out of you:

The lowly CX5 with mazda's 6-speed:
3800#, 250hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile 14.7@95mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a27255337/2019-mazda-cx-5-reliability-maintenance/


The Acura shoulda handily beat it, what with a 200# and 20hp disparity (should have cancelled), but was slower in every way, even though it had a 10-speed to its 6-speed!

Seems you're onto something with the Honda and their automatics. Bleh! It even gets WORSE fuel economy!

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

Because RX is rolling on outdated and not at all sophisticated platform from Highlander/Sienna. So, it is packing weight. Honda on other hand with new Pilot seriously shedded weight. I think AWD Pilot is like 4,250lbs. It is by far fastest SUV among appliance soccer mom SUV's.
Also, while Honda had issues with 9 speed due to software, there is no Aisin that will ever match speed of ZF transmission.


Maybe that's what's wrong with the Acura RDX. It has good power to weight, and 10 gears, but it's not any faster than the other cross-overs in its class.

That said, the X3 has a ZF 8-speed in it:

Pilot:
4300# curb, 280hp, 0-60 in 6.3, 1/4 mile in [email protected]
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/pilot/2019/2019-honda-pilot-elite-first-test-review/
X3:
4300# curb, 248hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile in 14.9@94mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19460227/2018-bmw-x3-xdrive30i-test-review/

That ZF transmission seems worth a good 30hp, lol!


Here's the Acura RDX A-spec:

3997# (I rounded the others to the nearest 50#), 272hp, 0-60 in 6.6, 1/4 mile in 15.2@93mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22805391/2019-acura-rdx-a-spec-value-not-performance/

Oh, and just to annoy the [censored] out of you:

The lowly CX5 with mazda's 6-speed:
3800#, 250hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile 14.7@95mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a27255337/2019-mazda-cx-5-reliability-maintenance/


The Acura shoulda handily beat it, what with a 200# and 20hp disparity (should have cancelled), but was slower in every way, even though it had a 10-speed to its 6-speed!

Seems you're onto something with the Honda and their automatics. Bleh! It even gets WORSE fuel economy!


Off topic but I'm stealing this list. Too many people think their Durango R/T's are the greatest things on the road, but all these 4 and 6 bangers run neck and neck with it

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Skippy722


Off topic but I'm stealing this list. Too many people think their Durango R/T's are the greatest things on the road, but all these 4 and 6 bangers run neck and neck with it

Yeah, this is what led me to the turbo 4-banger over the V8 powered SUV's. Similar performance until you get into the AMG/M class, and I am averaging over 26mpg over the lifetime of the vehicle. Now that Mazda stepped their game up, it's also quiet and works great as a long-distance road trip car. 67dB in the cabin at 70, per R&T. Compares pretty favorably to the traditional luxury brands, MB, and being slightly louder than the Audi Q5. I think that's the main thing for me in a vehicle on a long drive. It's the difference between turning the radio up a bit louder, or not, and arriving clear-headed and feeling good vs. with a head stuffed full of cotton. If you've ever gone on a 10+ hour road trip in a louder vehicle (70-75dB cabin), you understand.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Skippy722


Off topic but I'm stealing this list. Too many people think their Durango R/T's are the greatest things on the road, but all these 4 and 6 bangers run neck and neck with it

Yeah, this is what led me to the turbo 4-banger over the V8 powered SUV's. Similar performance until you get into the AMG/M class, and I am averaging over 26mpg over the lifetime of the vehicle. Now that Mazda stepped their game up, it's also quiet and works great as a long-distance road trip car. 67dB in the cabin at 70, per R&T. Compares pretty favorably to the traditional luxury brands, MB, and being slightly louder than the Audi Q5. I think that's the main thing for me in a vehicle on a long drive. It's the difference between turning the radio up a bit louder, or not, and arriving clear-headed and feeling good vs. with a head stuffed full of cotton. If you've ever gone on a 10+ hour road trip in a louder vehicle (70-75dB cabin), you understand.


I chopped the resonators (muffler in middle, dual resonators in rear) off my 5.7 hemi powered Durango Citadel... never again. It wasn't crazy loud, very mild, my brothers factory exhaust on the Daytona is way louder, but it definitely had a drone. It was fine for driving to work, but when we went 10 hours south, I regretted it.

Seriously, I'll never own a car that I can hear it's exhaust at idle again. The head stuffed with cotton analogy is spot on.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

Because RX is rolling on outdated and not at all sophisticated platform from Highlander/Sienna. So, it is packing weight. Honda on other hand with new Pilot seriously shedded weight. I think AWD Pilot is like 4,250lbs. It is by far fastest SUV among appliance soccer mom SUV's.
Also, while Honda had issues with 9 speed due to software, there is no Aisin that will ever match speed of ZF transmission.


Maybe that's what's wrong with the Acura RDX. It has good power to weight, and 10 gears, but it's not any faster than the other cross-overs in its class.

That said, the X3 has a ZF 8-speed in it:

Pilot:
4300# curb, 280hp, 0-60 in 6.3, 1/4 mile in [email protected]
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/pilot/2019/2019-honda-pilot-elite-first-test-review/
X3:
4300# curb, 248hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile in 14.9@94mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19460227/2018-bmw-x3-xdrive30i-test-review/

That ZF transmission seems worth a good 30hp, lol!


Here's the Acura RDX A-spec:

3997# (I rounded the others to the nearest 50#), 272hp, 0-60 in 6.6, 1/4 mile in 15.2@93mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22805391/2019-acura-rdx-a-spec-value-not-performance/

Oh, and just to annoy the [censored] out of you:

The lowly CX5 with mazda's 6-speed:
3800#, 250hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile 14.7@95mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a27255337/2019-mazda-cx-5-reliability-maintenance/


The Acura shoulda handily beat it, what with a 200# and 20hp disparity (should have cancelled), but was slower in every way, even though it had a 10-speed to its 6-speed!

Seems you're onto something with the Honda and their automatics. Bleh! It even gets WORSE fuel economy!

RDX 10 speed is NOT ZF transmission.
Pilot has ZF9, X3 has ZF8. In every aspect ZF8 is much faster transmission than ZF9 which is designed for transverse applications. Especially in BMW< ZF8 is almost as fast as dual clutch.
Your list and arguments are as simplistic as always.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It is interesting. My 2018 Pilot Touring with 280hp/262lb-ft and a 9-speed is significantly faster than my 2019 RX 350 with 295hp/267lb-ft and an 8-speed. I think officially the Pilot is almost 1 second faster to 60mph and it feels significantly faster.

Because RX is rolling on outdated and not at all sophisticated platform from Highlander/Sienna. So, it is packing weight. Honda on other hand with new Pilot seriously shedded weight. I think AWD Pilot is like 4,250lbs. It is by far fastest SUV among appliance soccer mom SUV's.
Also, while Honda had issues with 9 speed due to software, there is no Aisin that will ever match speed of ZF transmission.


Maybe that's what's wrong with the Acura RDX. It has good power to weight, and 10 gears, but it's not any faster than the other cross-overs in its class.

That said, the X3 has a ZF 8-speed in it:

Pilot:
4300# curb, 280hp, 0-60 in 6.3, 1/4 mile in [email protected]
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/pilot/2019/2019-honda-pilot-elite-first-test-review/
X3:
4300# curb, 248hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile in 14.9@94mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19460227/2018-bmw-x3-xdrive30i-test-review/

That ZF transmission seems worth a good 30hp, lol!


Here's the Acura RDX A-spec:

3997# (I rounded the others to the nearest 50#), 272hp, 0-60 in 6.6, 1/4 mile in 15.2@93mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a22805391/2019-acura-rdx-a-spec-value-not-performance/

Oh, and just to annoy the [censored] out of you:

The lowly CX5 with mazda's 6-speed:
3800#, 250hp, 0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 mile 14.7@95mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a27255337/2019-mazda-cx-5-reliability-maintenance/


The Acura shoulda handily beat it, what with a 200# and 20hp disparity (should have cancelled), but was slower in every way, even though it had a 10-speed to its 6-speed!

Seems you're onto something with the Honda and their automatics. Bleh! It even gets WORSE fuel economy!


Off topic but I'm stealing this list. Too many people think their Durango R/T's are the greatest things on the road, but all these 4 and 6 bangers run neck and neck with it

You cannot compare Pilot or Mazda CX9 with Durango R/t. It is impossible. First of all, Durango has Mercedes platform from ML/GL and can tow (as far as I remember) 7,500lbs. That is A LOT for unibody platform. It weigh 5,500lbs, it has two speed transfer case etc. R/T is not 0-60 machine, but it will swallow for breakfast all appliance SUV's.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by edyvw

You cannot compare Pilot or Mazda CX9 with Durango R/t. It is impossible. First of all, Durango has Mercedes platform from ML/GL and can tow (as far as I remember) 7,500lbs. That is A LOT for unibody platform. It weigh 5,500lbs, it has two speed transfer case etc. R/T is not 0-60 machine, but it will swallow for breakfast all appliance SUV's.


I owned one and know entirely too much about them lol...

My point was some owners think their R/T's are the greatest things to ever grace the Earth. They spout out BS like how much horsepower they have, how "good" their exhaust sounds, how "quick" they are, and then get incredibly defensive when you point out that the minivan for people who don't want a minivan (Pilot) will give their precious 5.7 a run for its money with 2 less cylinders. Or that from 2011 till 2018 water pumps seemed to have a ~30k mile lifespan.

It was nice, but I'd buy a Mazda CX-5/9 over another Grand Cherokee/Durango. I don't tow, so I don't care about tow ratings and they're the best looking things on the road (I can't afford an Audi RS6 Avant) in my opinion.