Rx Se-L 350 Vs 400H

[andy1610]

Hello. I'm a new member. Looking to buy a used RX SE-L at some point soon. Have the luxury of choosing either a 350 or 400h. I will be using it to travel to Eastern Europe a few times a year on their awful roads (especially muddy, potholed village roads), so would like some advice, whether a 350 then LPG convertion, or go for a 400h without air suspension and 'Snow' button. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

[rudders]

I am no expert - just a RX400h owner who drove it on snow for this first time last winter.

I bought snow chains, but they didn't leave their box! The RX400h has computer-controlled transmission which worked like a dream, even up fairly steep slopes. Stopping is more of an issue - perhaps chains could help there.

And after all the potholes appeared, it made me even happier I had ditched my BMW 5 with low profile tyres!

I guess the main considerations would be resale value and fuel consumption.

[andy1610]

I am no expert - just a RX400h owner who drove it on snow for this first time last winter.

I bought snow chains, but they didn't leave their box! The RX400h has computer-controlled transmission which worked like a dream, even up fairly steep slopes. Stopping is more of an issue - perhaps chains could help there.

And after all the potholes appeared, it made me even happier I had ditched my BMW 5 with low profile tyres!

I guess the main considerations would be resale value and fuel consumption.

Thanks rudders. This is exactly the kind of info that's useful to me at the moment. If the transmission is that clever, and will keep me out of ditches and extremely muddy tracky roads, then I will consider a hybrid RX. Would be interesting to hear more from 350 owners, with standard RX's and LPG converted ones too. Thanks again.

[ihpj]

You will have to test drive both to get an idea for which one you like and how each handles.

I'm not a fan of the 400h: overweighted, poor-balance, not sure-footed in bends, huge torque-steer and above all expensive. If you prefer to have a more competent 4x4, then you wont beat the 350 (IMHO) and if you buy smartly, then you can save a packet on the 350 and use it to offset the higher running costs.

[BGLister]

I disagree that the 400h is overweighted, 'poor balance, not sure footed in bends'. Quite the opposite in my experience of owning the 350 then a 400h, I would say that the extra weight of a 400h is not noticeable and actually irrelevant. In fact, I would say the 400h has the edge in handling due to slightly stiffer suspension, lower centre of gravity, weight balance from front to back. Ride comfort is excellent too. Resale will be miles better.

Any way, I copy my comparison from a another recent post:

"I wanted to replace the 350 with another 350 when there were deals offered on the run out model. However, I was offered a surprisingly good deal on a 400h instead for much the same money. My family is no stranger to the 400h with my uncle already having owned two of them. I was persuaded by the dealer to test drive a 400h and see if I could really live with it.

On balance the 350 and 400h are both fine cars, but with slightly different focal points. I think that if you were doing alot of motorway miles, the 350 would deliver pleasing fuel economy (for a 3.5 litre), with great performance. However, I live in West Yorkshire, and alot of petrol goes down the tail pipe from climbing hills, and bills roll in for wearing out brakes. I can say hand on heart that the 400h has been a really good all round vehicle with significanly lower running costs. I have averaged 31.1 mpg from new, with a bias towards round town driving and the occasional 150-200 mile motorway round trip. In comparison the 350 would have given me more like 25-26 mph, and much high road tax of course. In real terms, I got usually 250-260 miles on a full tank with the 350 with a best ever of 300 miles whilst driving in Holland (flat!). By contrast, the 400h gives me 360 miles with a best ever of 400 miles from brim to brim.

The RX350 has full time all wheel drive and the RX400h part time by virture of being front drive with auxilliary support from the rear when necessary, This kicks in when moving from stand still, accelerating hard or in slippery conditions. Although the 400h gets some criticisim for carrying the weight of batteries, it has no prop shaft to contend with. Handling wise, I prefer that of the 400h which has a more even distribution from front to back. (The RX350 did try to kill me once when I hit ice on a bend at 50 mph and did a 180 degree spin!). In terms of off road performance, the 350 was disappointing and very nearly got me stuck in mud once despite being a full 4WD (though not designed as a focused off roader of course). With the 400h, I have had no cause to take it off road, but in the last winter, it was superb at tackling deep snow (12") and snowy/icy hills. It was quite sure footed setting off on slippery conditions, but putting good traction down courtesty of the torque coming from the motors at low road speeds. In fact, it was practically impossible to wheel spin it.

So on balance?

The 350 is great, but will cost more to run than a 400h in terms of petrol, brakes and RFL. I would also say that it will depreciate more than a 400h as it will not be as desirable to as many used car customers as the hybrid. That helps it become better value for money if you get a good deal, that can help off set the extra running costs.

The 400h is also good, but the smooth power transition through its CVT transmission will have you smiling that it can deliver rapid acceleration, but incredibly smoothly, and surprise and shame other cars out there, whilst keeping the fuel bills in check. This may be even more of a factor in the future with expectations for increased petrol costs in the future, as well as the 20% VAT rate.

The choice is yours, but the 400h delivers (for me) the better proposition, confirmed after enduring experience of all the RX range as an owner."

What I would say is, does it really need to be a Lexus anyway? What is the main use of the vehicle going to be and what kind or roads will it be running on? If you have a breakage, will there be a facility within reach who can effect a repair.

I would not go for an LPG conversion on a Lexus either (personally). Japanese engines have soft valve seats that would require an LPG system which adds lubrication. All bit of a faff, and if the engine wears prematurely, you will have a big bill to fix it on top of the £2000 for the LPG kit (a decent one will cost that inc VAT). It could be an expensive way of trying to save money.

If you are going to do alot of high mileage motorway work - may be think of a robust 4x4 diesel alternative with may be more carrying space too. I think this boils down to what you want the vehicle for and how you are going to live with it.

[ihpj]

Sorry, what I meant to say was that the 400h is over-balanced and tail happy when hitting bends at speed. The rear 'driven' wheels only come into being when the vehicle detects a spin...sometimes it does not and it is possible to push the tail out before it will correct itself.

The extra weight of the batteries the 400h carries does make it imbalanced because unless there is the need for the rear wheels to kick in, it remains a front wheel drive only and as the batteries only drive the rear wheels, so it follows that unless the rear wheels are being driven, the batteries are just dead weight.

The rear wheels are only driven on demand - and if you do happen to nail it, there is immense torque steer that can make the vehicle less than surefooted.

In comparison, the 350 remains better balanced as it is not only lighter but being AWD all of the time, it offers surefooted acceleration in a straight line and in bends (OK so its not as quick as the combined hybrid drive train).

The 400h has its uses, for say company car drivers who need to pay less in tax etc. - but I do believe too many people have been taken in by the slick Lexus marketing on this vehicle. Each to their own I say.

[andy1610]

I disagree that the 400h is overweighted, 'poor balance, not sure footed in bends'. Quite the opposite in my experience of owning the 350 then a 400h, I would say that the extra weight of a 400h is not noticeable and actually irrelevant. In fact, I would say the 400h has the edge in handling due to slightly stiffer suspension, lower centre of gravity, weight balance from front to back. Ride comfort is excellent too. Resale will be miles better.

Any way, I copy my comparison from a another recent post:

"I wanted to replace the 350 with another 350 when there were deals offered on the run out model. However, I was offered a surprisingly good deal on a 400h instead for much the same money. My family is no stranger to the 400h with my uncle already having owned two of them. I was persuaded by the dealer to test drive a 400h and see if I could really live with it.

On balance the 350 and 400h are both fine cars, but with slightly different focal points. I think that if you were doing alot of motorway miles, the 350 would deliver pleasing fuel economy (for a 3.5 litre), with great performance. However, I live in West Yorkshire, and alot of petrol goes down the tail pipe from climbing hills, and bills roll in for wearing out brakes. I can say hand on heart that the 400h has been a really good all round vehicle with significanly lower running costs. I have averaged 31.1 mpg from new, with a bias towards round town driving and the occasional 150-200 mile motorway round trip. In comparison the 350 would have given me more like 25-26 mph, and much high road tax of course. In real terms, I got usually 250-260 miles on a full tank with the 350 with a best ever of 300 miles whilst driving in Holland (flat!). By contrast, the 400h gives me 360 miles with a best ever of 400 miles from brim to brim.

The RX350 has full time all wheel drive and the RX400h part time by virture of being front drive with auxilliary support from the rear when necessary, This kicks in when moving from stand still, accelerating hard or in slippery conditions. Although the 400h gets some criticisim for carrying the weight of batteries, it has no prop shaft to contend with. Handling wise, I prefer that of the 400h which has a more even distribution from front to back. (The RX350 did try to kill me once when I hit ice on a bend at 50 mph and did a 180 degree spin!). In terms of off road performance, the 350 was disappointing and very nearly got me stuck in mud once despite being a full 4WD (though not designed as a focused off roader of course). With the 400h, I have had no cause to take it off road, but in the last winter, it was superb at tackling deep snow (12") and snowy/icy hills. It was quite sure footed setting off on slippery conditions, but putting good traction down courtesty of the torque coming from the motors at low road speeds. In fact, it was practically impossible to wheel spin it.

So on balance?

The 350 is great, but will cost more to run than a 400h in terms of petrol, brakes and RFL. I would also say that it will depreciate more than a 400h as it will not be as desirable to as many used car customers as the hybrid. That helps it become better value for money if you get a good deal, that can help off set the extra running costs.

The 400h is also good, but the smooth power transition through its CVT transmission will have you smiling that it can deliver rapid acceleration, but incredibly smoothly, and surprise and shame other cars out there, whilst keeping the fuel bills in check. This may be even more of a factor in the future with expectations for increased petrol costs in the future, as well as the 20% VAT rate.

The choice is yours, but the 400h delivers (for me) the better proposition, confirmed after enduring experience of all the RX range as an owner."

What I would say is, does it really need to be a Lexus anyway? What is the main use of the vehicle going to be and what kind or roads will it be running on? If you have a breakage, will there be a facility within reach who can effect a repair.

I would not go for an LPG conversion on a Lexus either (personally). Japanese engines have soft valve seats that would require an LPG system which adds lubrication. All bit of a faff, and if the engine wears prematurely, you will have a big bill to fix it on top of the £2000 for the LPG kit (a decent one will cost that inc VAT). It could be an expensive way of trying to save money.

If you are going to do alot of high mileage motorway work - may be think of a robust 4x4 diesel alternative with may be more carrying space too. I think this boils down to what you want the vehicle for and how you are going to live with it.

Many thanks for all of that. Very interesting. A lot to munch through, although obviously a test drive in both is a must. Will report back soon.

[andy1610]

Sorry, what I meant to say was that the 400h is over-balanced and tail happy when hitting bends at speed. The rear 'driven' wheels only come into being when the vehicle detects a spin...sometimes it does not and it is possible to push the tail out before it will correct itself.

The extra weight of the batteries the 400h carries does make it imbalanced because unless there is the need for the rear wheels to kick in, it remains a front wheel drive only and as the batteries only drive the rear wheels, so it follows that unless the rear wheels are being driven, the batteries are just dead weight.

The rear wheels are only driven on demand - and if you do happen to nail it, there is immense torque steer that can make the vehicle less than surefooted.

In comparison, the 350 remains better balanced as it is not only lighter but being AWD all of the time, it offers surefooted acceleration in a straight line and in bends (OK so its not as quick as the combined hybrid drive train).

The 400h has its uses, for say company car drivers who need to pay less in tax etc. - but I do believe too many people have been taken in by the slick Lexus marketing on this vehicle. Each to their own I say.

Also very interesting, many thanks, but agree a test drive in both will certainly make things a little clearer.

[ihpj]

...agree a test drive in both will certainly make things a little clearer.

Its more than that, you will have to determine what use you have for the vehicle and how you intend to drive it. Then test drive according to your needs. Its great to have choice - its making the right one thats tricky!

Between the two I don't think you can go wrong, as both are more than competent for most people and their daily uses and do exactly what they say on the tin. You will be satisifed with either :)

[andy1610]

...agree a test drive in both will certainly make things a little clearer.

Its more than that, you will have to determine what use you have for the vehicle and how you intend to drive it. Then test drive according to your needs. Its great to have choice - its making the right one thats tricky!

Between the two I don't think you can go wrong, as both are more than competent for most people and their daily uses and do exactly what they say on the tin. You will be satisifed with either :)

I agree with you, so will test drive the cars with my driving styles, needs and requirements in mind. Have done a lot of thinking on the subject, but you have reinforced my thoughts on the matter. Will also test drive a VW Toerag just for comparison, although my heart and mind are pretty much set on the Lexus RX.

[ihpj]

Will also test drive a VW Toerag just for comparison, although my heart and mind are pretty much set on the Lexus RX.

Don't forget that the Toerag is a Porsche Cayenne in drag. That makes it a very competent vehicle and has two excellent engines: either the 3.0TDI engine or the petrol V8.

I think you just made your choice a little more complicated! ;)

[steve haley]

Don't forget that the Toerag is a Porsche Cayenne in drag. That makes it a very competent vehicle and has two excellent engines: either the 3.0TDI engine or the petrol V8.

I think it is the otherway arround in that the Cayenne is a Toureg blinged up

As for competant maybe - reliable maybe no. My mate has had a lot of problems with his at 5yrs old 120k diesel

With respect to the original question it all depends.

1) Yes the milage on the 400h is better but this is only really significant arround town - I get 24mpg on a mixed run from my 350 (Luton to London centre) but 28+ on a long run on motoway/dual carriageway at speed with no regard to economy. When I did the sums I reckoned that the petrol had already been largely discounted into the price as my 9mth old SEL was 6-9k cheaper than an equiv 400h. You get a tax break on the Road tax and London congestion with the 400h which makes it slightly cheaper if you are going to keep it a long time. My friend has an averrage of 28mpg on his 400h from mixed city/mw (50:50) but reckons it doesnt vary much and if anything city is better than long runs.

2) While the 400h suspension is stiffer and better than the normal 300/350 it is nowhere near as good as the air suspension on the sel

3) The 350h is faster and more responsive than the 400h which in turn is faster than the 300. If you use the the power on the 400h then the fuel consumption suffers badly

4) Sorry but I find CV gearboxes just strange and noiser than normal. (had a 400h for a weekend and reguarly driven/drive in a friends).

5) The 400h is not 4wd (engine drives the front and electric the rear - this makes a difference no matter what people say. You can feel the 400h trying to stem the front wheel tramp when you accelerate hard. To compensate Lexus have stiffened the 400h stearing (less feel and stiffer so a lose-lose in my book)

6) 400h's appear to have engine starter Battery issues under certain scenarios. (My friend now keeps a jump start booster box in his boot). I was put off as my car often lies idle over witer months f0r 3-4wks at a time and the dealer suggested that I left it on charge.

7) The 350 will eat brake pads - it is heavy but they arent exactly expensive and nor are discs

If economy is important and you either live in a town or do lots of short journeys then the 400h is probably the car for you otherwise I would say it simply comes down to personal preferance. Me - I went with a 6mth old 350 sel 18mths ago and have not regretted it at all. One of the best cars I have ever had. Goes up the 1:10 in switzerland better than anything I have owned/rented. With snow tyres on almost unstoppable in the white stuff and tows my 16mtr 900kg glider trailer like a dream. Quietish and lots of power when you need it up to and beyond uk speed limits. MPG on the 350 is somewat sensitive to petrol quality - I normally feed mine super unleaded from sainsbury (at a 2p premium) and reckon I get 5-10% better fuel consumption if on a run. The air suspension is wonderful but I pray they have ironed out the the problems that have plagued some of the older cars but it makes towing and long trips with full boots way easier.

Either way both are great cars and doubt you would be disapointed with either. There are better 4x4 (x5, toureg, Disco) out there but they are way bigger and not as reliable and unless you are going to tow around very heavy things or are serious about off roading then the lexus is a better choice imho.

If muddy tracks are your thing then both will work but the 350 is definately better. My friend cant tow the glider trailer over the grass airfield easily when wet while I have few problems. Having said that if you fit a set of Nokian All seasons then this would disappear. While the car can cope in very slippy winter conditions there really is no substitute for decent winter tyres and they only really cost the price of a spare set of rims. I used to run an xjs in the alps with winter tyres and never used chains and that was on a heavy rear wheel drive car with huge torque.

Edited September 1, 2010 by steve haley

[andy1610]

Don't forget that the Toerag is a Porsche Cayenne in drag. That makes it a very competent vehicle and has two excellent engines: either the 3.0TDI engine or the petrol V8.

I think it is the otherway arround in that the Cayenne is a Toureg blinged up

As for competant maybe - reliable maybe no. My mate has had a lot of problems with his at 5yrs old 120k diesel

With respect to the original question it all depends.

1) Yes the milage on the 400h is better but this is only really significant arround town - I get 24mpg on a mixed run from my 350 (Luton to London centre) but 28+ on a long run on motoway/dual carriageway at speed with no regard to economy. When I did the sums I reckoned that the petrol had already been largely discounted into the price as my 9mth old SEL was 6-9k cheaper than an equiv 400h. You get a tax break on the Road tax and London congestion with the 400h which makes it slightly cheaper if you are going to keep it a long time. My friend has an averrage of 28mpg on his 400h from mixed city/mw (50:50) but reckons it doesnt vary much and if anything city is better than long runs.

2) While the 400h suspension is stiffer and better than the normal 300/350 it is nowhere near as good as the air suspension on the sel

3) The 350h is faster and more responsive than the 400h which in turn is faster than the 300. If you use the the power on the 400h then the fuel consumption suffers badly

4) Sorry but I find CV gearboxes just strange and noiser than normal. (had a 400h for a weekend and reguarly driven/drive in a friends).

5) The 400h is not 4wd (engine drives the front and electric the rear - this makes a difference no matter what people say. You can feel the 400h trying to stem the front wheel tramp when you accelerate hard. To compensate Lexus have stiffened the 400h stearing (less feel and stiffer so a lose-lose in my book)

6) 400h's appear to have engine starter Battery issues under certain scenarios. (My friend now keeps a jump start booster box in his boot). I was put off as my car often lies idle over witer months f0r 3-4wks at a time and the dealer suggested that I left it on charge.

7) The 350 will eat brake pads - it is heavy but they arent exactly expensive and nor are discs

If economy is important and you either live in a town or do lots of short journeys then the 400h is probably the car for you otherwise I would say it simply comes down to personal preferance. Me - I went with a 6mth old 350 sel 18mths ago and have not regretted it at all. One of the best cars I have ever had. Goes up the 1:10 in switzerland better than anything I have owned/rented. With snow tyres on almost unstoppable in the white stuff and tows my 16mtr 900kg glider trailer like a dream. Quietish and lots of power when you need it up to and beyond uk speed limits. MPG on the 350 is somewat sensitive to petrol quality - I normally feed mine super unleaded from sainsbury (at a 2p premium) and reckon I get 5-10% better fuel consumption if on a run. The air suspension is wonderful but I pray they have ironed out the the problems that have plagued some of the older cars but it makes towing and long trips with full boots way easier.

Either way both are great cars and doubt you would be disapointed with either. There are better 4x4 (x5, toureg, Disco) out there but they are way bigger and not as reliable and unless you are going to tow around very heavy things or are serious about off roading then the lexus is a better choice imho.

If muddy tracks are your thing then both will work but the 350 is definately better. My friend cant tow the glider trailer over the grass airfield easily when wet while I have few problems. Having said that if you fit a set of Nokian All seasons then this would disappear. While the car can cope in very slippy winter conditions there really is no substitute for decent winter tyres and they only really cost the price of a spare set of rims. I used to run an xjs in the alps with winter tyres and never used chains and that was on a heavy rear wheel drive car with huge torque.

Many thanks Steve. Also very interesting. I understand the RX is generally very reliable, although this forum is the place to find out about the gremlins that afflict all cars, regardless. air suspension being one of them. Was at a Lexus dealer last week, sitting in a 350sel that had just 'come in', dirty, mucky etc.. and played with the air suspension button, thought it slow to react, then remembered about previous posts which mentioned air susp. sensor issues, which are apparently quite easily remedied when they're dirty and caked in muck by simply cleaning them. ?. Economy figures for the 350 don't seem very far off diesel Touregs, which is good news. My only concern is - muddy tracks, winter conditions in Eastern Europe etc. Space for winter tyres could be an issue, so do you think all weather/season tyres would suffice?

You're right about the size of Touregs etc. Took one out yesterday for a test drive. Wonderful car, responsive 3.0 diesel engine, refined, quite luxurious etc, but much bigger I thought than the RX. Owned a string of German large saloons and experienced their electrical problems well enough to make me think twice about the Toureg.

Will report back once RX test drives completed and decision made, although still prefer, I think the RX 350 at this point.

[steve haley]

My only concern is - muddy tracks, winter conditions in Eastern Europe etc. Space for winter tyres could be an issue, so do you think all weather/season tyres would suffice?

Never found all season any good on icy roads - personally would always find room somewhere for a set of winter tyres. Most people view them as snow tyres and dont realise they are actually better once the tempc <10c period.

The only all season I know is winter certified is the Nokian WR but they arent as good as a dedicated set of winter pirelli/dunlops.

ADAC do tests every year in various sizes

http://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/reifen/default.aspx

Most people I know in the alps drive 2wd with winter tyres so the 4wd is just a bonus if anything the weight is a disadvantage.

rgds

Stephen