Thoughts on an old Lexus?

[ecotourist]

I had a Toyota Solara of that era with the same V6 engine, It was known to be a sludger. My brother had a Camry V6 that sludged up on a cross country trip.

At the time it was said to be due to an "improvement" to the heads restricting oil drainage from the heads or running the heads hotter to improve emissions. Toyota eventually accepted that there was an issue and slightly extended the warranty period on these engines.

People used synthetic oil in them which seemed to prevent sludging.

 

[aquariuscsm]

When I hear the Camry compared to the Lexus,isn't the Lexus RWD vs the Camry's FWD?

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Nick1994
Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
The 4th gen Camry/ES300 wasn't the best generation due to the issues you mention. And also, it is impossible to access the rear cylinder bank. I think 99 is when they added VVTi and it became an interference engine (if the timing belt breaks, the engine is toast). Since the 1MZ has issues, you may want to consider the later ES330 (which has the 3.3L 3MZ, offered from 04-06)

You'd be better off with the Acura RL, which has a longitudinal engine. It is probably much easier to service.


I'm pretty sure the VVTi version came in 2002 or later, so this one should be non-interference.

The rear cylinders aren't fun to get at, but not horrible. My brother and I replaced his spark plugs in his 96' ES300 and later the intake manifold gaskets. The worst spark plugs to get at would be my mom's previous Buick Rendezvous.


The 1999 ES300 was the first to receive the VVTi 1MZ-FE followed with the 2000 Avalon.....The Camry was the last to get VVTi.

ALL 1MZ-FE engines are non-interference, The 3MZ-FE is interference

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
When I hear the Camry compared to the Lexus,isn't the Lexus RWD vs the Camry's FWD?


Not correct. The ES300 is just a rebadged Camry, so both are FWD

There is a RWD model called the GS300, but that is an entirely different car that shares no parts with the ES300/Camry. The flagship LS400 is also RWD.

 

[Oro_O]

The VVTi motor was installed in starting around the 98my.

There's only a bore difference between the 3mz-fe and the immediately prior 1mz-fe. General consensus is they are non-interference, though there are conflicting references on this. Timing belt failures are really rare, and head damage - I've never heard of it.

The real issue is this:

Quote
*Would have a U140E transaxle I believe......Known for Planetary & Bearing failures, Make sure no noise is present!


The thrust bearings supporting the planetary gears were made with defective steel; they fail and ruing the planetary, or shed material and wreck the solenoids and valve body. Can happen any time; maintenance helps but is no guarantee.

I would look at a 2002+; this issue is fixed. It's not quite as pretty a car, but has a nicer interior and gets better MPGs. Alternatively, one with the 4speed Asin A-series transaxle (98 and down) would be solid. The 2002-2006 ES300/ES330 are the same, save a little more displacement in the 330. We have 300k on one of these and it runs great, given proper care and maintenance. No "fatal flaw" unlike the 99-01 with the U140E.

Parts are very affordable and most things are quite easy to work on. It's not a "re-badged" Camry, though they have the same body pan and drivetrain.

 

[clinebarger]

I've seen 3MZ-FE's have slightly bent valves after a TB failure......Even the vaunted UNITTA belts dry-rot & fail here.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've seen 3MZ-FE's have slightly bent valves after a TB failure......Even the vaunted UNITTA belts dry-rot & fail here.

Remember, though, in the xMZ family, only the 3MZ from the later vehicles was an interference design. The 1MZ, the 3.0L version found in the ES-300 was not. Obviously, a timing belt breaking isn't a good thing, but valve damage shouldn't be a factor were the TB to break in a 3.0L car. Not so if you're looking at ES-330s.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've seen 3MZ-FE's have slightly bent valves after a TB failure......Even the vaunted UNITTA belts dry-rot & fail here.

Remember, though, in the xMZ family, only the 3MZ from the later vehicles was an interference design. The 1MZ, the 3.0L version found in the ES-300 was not. Obviously, a timing belt breaking isn't a good thing, but valve damage shouldn't be a factor were the TB to break in a 3.0L car. Not so if you're looking at ES-330s.


I covered that the 1MZ-FE wasn't a interference engine in a earlier post.