It didn’t take a mountain trail or an off-road adventure to appreciate the 1999 Lexus RX300. A day spent hauling friends and apples through a Virginia orchard was enough to reveal its appeal. Comfortable on the highway, capable on rough dirt roads, and surprisingly practical, the RX300 demonstrated why it would become one of the most influential luxury vehicles of its era.
Before you read the original review, a bit of background. My wife and I made friends with a couple who had a newborn baby, so the “fifth” person I reference below was actually an infant in a car seat that was latched in the middle of the back seat with our friends on either side. To still be comfortable in that setup really says something. Like I mention below, I also appreciated the additional ground clearance while I navigated the well-worn dirt road in the apple orchard that was littered with tons of little peaks and valleys. I distinctly remember seeing a Panther-bodied Country Squire going in the other direction constantly bottoming out.
This was a big orchard, and we had to drive to the different sections, so while I drove, my wife and one of our friends sat in the trunk with the hatch open. We quickly learned what a terrible idea it is to drive on red Virginia dirt on a dry day with the hatch open. The entire inside of the RX300 was soon covered in fine Virginia soil, and it took us hours to (unsuccessfully) clean it out before the car was picked up the following Monday. Let that be a warning.
The following review ran on November 16, 1998.
While most luxury makers have only a token SUV, Lexus has taken a two-pronged attack: the Toyota Land Cruiser-based LX470 (formerly LX450) has been joined by the new for 1999 RX300.
Unlike its big brother, the RX300 is a hybrid whose underpinnings come primarily from Toyota’s Camry. With its bold grille and squat stance, the RX300 looks like it’s ready for business. But overall, the design isn’t as tough as most SUVs, with traces of the cute little RAV4 and Sienna minivan throughout. With the five-spoke alloy wheels and projector-beam style head and tail lamps, it did turn many heads.
All of the accouterments that Lexus buyers would expect are inside, including leather and wood trim, a glove compartment six CD changer, and a screen that displays climate control, radio, and trip information. Lexus customers prefer a console mounted shifter, so designers molded it into the bottom center of the dash, allowing plenty of room for bins and cupholders.
Its car roots make the RX300 easier to live with on a daily basis than its truck-based competitors such as the Infiniti QX4 and Acura SLX. The driver has a commanding view without a huge step-up to climb inside. The 220-horsepower V6 is smooth and powerful, and gas mileage is excellent for an SUV.
The RX300 lacks a low-range setting and therefore can’t conquer the Rubicon. However, my wife and I took some friends apple picking in central Virginia, which is about as far off road as most SUV owners will ever go. All five of us were quite comfortable on the paved portions; inside the orchard, the increased ground clearance and all-wheel drive gave the RX300 a significant edge in negotiating the trails. All of our apples fit quite nicely in the 39.8 cubic-foot trunk, and the rear seat slides forward as well as folds for even more cargo space. In the other extreme, downtown Washington, DC, the RX300 took the rough pavement and potholes in stride.
While people are bad-mouthing SUVs as unnecessary, gas guzzling road hogs, the comfort and practicality of the RX300 could make the staunchest SUV-hater a convert.
For more information contact 1-800-872-5398
SPECIFICATIONS
Type:4-Door Sport-Utility Vehicle
Engine:220-horsepower, 3.0 liter V6
Transmission:four-speed Automatic
EPA Mileage:19 city/22 highway
Tested Price:$38,603
If you recall, the early car-based SUVs were called hybrids, which caused some confusion with the powertrain hybrids, Prius and Insight. Fortunately, within a few years, the term “crossover” replaced it as the preferred term for these types of vehicles. In addition, there was less of a distinction between “4WD” and “AWD” back then, as we all know that the RX was, and still is, AWD. Finally, for our younger readers, the Infiniti QX4 was a rebadged Nissan Pathfinder (before it became a crossover), and the Acura SLX was a rebadged Isuzu Trooper.
Note: Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
These really launched this segment. We had a neighbor that traded a loaded Chrysler Town and Country for one of these and another one who traded their Ford Taurus (the oval one) for a RX. Around us (in west St.Louis county) these were mainly driven by upper middle class women. I also hope you all do a CC on the Infiniti QX4.
Harbinger of things to come…
Some would call it a homewrecker
It’s interesting how this picture just barely projects at the future grille shape, while extremely vestigial all of the angles are in the right places and at more or less the correct orientation.
And the signature sweep of this one’s C-pillar is now somewhat replicated by a similar sweep of glass instead of metal, again making that part of the vehicle stand out albeit with the exact opposite material (glass framed by metal as opposed to metal framed by glass).
These are still very compelling, while there are plenty still around, they’ve mostly been well used by now. Lexus’ second greatest hit (chronologically speaking) after the initial LS400 and it keeps on going/selling.
It’s amazing that this car is 20 years old (after all, your ‘fifth person’ is now of voting age) — this is perhaps the ultimate example of a car that’s aged well. One of these would still be a perfectly admissible choice in well-off neighborhoods even now. The design, and even the very concept of the RX, are both very contemporary.
Like you said, the comfort and practicality of this market segment wound up being hard to be beat.
Alas, that infant is not merely of age to vote in this election, but was also at the last one!
Time gets an awful rush on the more of it goes by.
I bet the work involved in the de-dusting soured the apples some, a bit like that canny bargain second-hand purchase of a what-not – which what-not then fails immediately, leaving one to purchase a new one on top….
I too have made the error of fine dirt road and a tailgate, here the top half of a ’70’s wagon (Holden) open (that is, the window part down). Finally pulled over to wind it up when I realised I was trying to wipe thick dust off the INSIDE of the windscreen. Nightmare cleaning job when I looked into the rest of the car, and the car not mine. Also failed to get it all out.
A rusted out tailgate on a Holden wagon produces the same effect, the inside acts like a vacuum cleaner for the scenery
I still have one just like the picture in like new condition. The vehicle does everything well, comfort, ride, acceleration, steering, handling, braking, etc. The only downfalls are the poor gas mileage and a car alarm system that is draining the battery. This week I am taking it to the third Lexus dealer for help with that problem.
What’s funny is that I believe the QX4 and Pathfinder were unibody at that time. But they were more rugged RWD-based unibody, like the Grand Cherokee, XJ Cherokee and eventual Touareg and Cayenne.
They certainly weren’t soft-roader crossovers like the Lexus RX, upcoming Acura MDX and upcoming Volvo XC90. Or sports wagons on stilts like the X5.
I’m pretty sure that the QX4, unlike the Pathfinder, was full time AWD with a center diff and no low range. So despite its outward appearance, and the fact that it wasn’t passenger car based, it was an interesting branch of the SUV-CUV tree.
This vehicle appeared to me as logical as wheels on a suitcase. You wonder why no one did it before. And like wheels on a suitcase, every senior citizen bought one.
Just thought I’d mention that my neighbors on either side of me have RX350s. They’re eternally ubiquitous.
I believe that Lexus RX300 was to offer alternative to Mercedes ML320 first introduced to public in 1997. It was the first luxury and upscale SUV in North America. It captured a lot of upscale buyers until people found out its shortcomings, build quality and reliability problems. RX300 came in the right time, got a lot of business from Mercedes. About its interior with wood trim I am sure the later generation has wood trim. I remember I visited a Lexus dealer to look at a RX350, two generations of the current generation, it didn’t have wood trim. I asked the salesman about that, his answer was Lexus is luxury vehicle.
Back to Mercedes ML, a improved model was introduced in 2002 in response to competition from Lexus and Acura MDX, it was a better vehicle in my opinion despite many negative comments about this SUV. I owned a 2003 ML350 for from 2007 to 2020. I enjoyed owning this vehicle, my two children grew up with it, it was very steady on the road, although it was heavy and a bit of slow. I found its steering feel was better than my 2003 Honda Accord. It had wood trim. I had major six problems, steering pump, alternator, center shaft bearing, rear spring broken and AC compressor failure (that was Japan Denso unit). My wife enjoyed driving that car, right size, stable ride and she claimed its brakes were superior than other vehicles she had ever driven. The original one was even better, but wore up very quickly every 15,000 miles. We changed to ceramic brake pads, they last for over 40,000 miles.
The ML went into production in February of 1997; the Toyota Harrier (Lexus RX) went into production in November of 1997, so there was no way the RX300 was a response to the ML. Toyota was a pioneer in the category of crossover/SUVs, with their RAV4 that came out back in 1994. Toyota was building on the success of the RAV4.
Mercedes ML (W168) had been developing since 1970s, Daimlers was only able to produce it in 1997. I believe more precisely speaking RX 350 was in response to ML in North America market. ML can be considered a real 4×4 with low range selection if necessary, very similar to Land Cruiser. I once saw a ML320 dropping into two- feet ditch and getting out with ease in a orchard farm. I couldn’t imagine RX350 does that. For sure RX 350 is more proper vehicle for suburban life, high seating, spacious, well built, smooth engine and very reliable. Mercedes was aware that the generation after W168 was CUV type on the unibody. But that one had even more problems, basically giving Lexus more opportunities to expand in US. More Lexus introduced GX with powerful V8 and body on frame design, it is a very capable 4×4 because it is a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. Despite it had a solid rear axle, I drove it many times, I think it is better than W168 on highway and country roads although I have to say Benz is more stable
Both of these cars were their manufacturer’s response to the crowing popularity of SUVs and 4x4s, a boom that had been growing for a long time. But they went about it very differently, with the RX being FWD-based, unibody, more comfortable and much better suited for its inevitable use: suburban family use and very much not intended for off-roading. Anybody interested din that would have bought a Land Cruiser/GX.
It’s simply not appropriate to say that either of these was a response to the other; they didn’t need to. Both came as a response to the SUV boom, and they were very different approaches to that response. They may have completed for the same customers, but that doesn’t mean one was a response to the other. Japan was a pioneer in the FWD-based CUV segment and the RX reflected that.
“I’m pretty sure that the QX4, unlike the Pathfinder, was full time AWD with a center diff and no low range. ”
On the contrary. Having just sold my QX4 after 9 years I can assure you it was not full time AWD and does indeed have low range, a rear LSD and is very capable off road.
Back on topic, the RX300 always struck me as a “chick car” Neither a complement or an insult, it seemed like they were always driven by women. Again, nothing to do with the car, just who I saw driving them. But I did get the impression the owners liked them.
I think the reason why the RX 300 still looks fresh nearly 30 years later is the styling has changed very little over time. Toyota has updated the styling just enough over the years to look modern, but still recognizable as a RX 300.
The only car I can think of that was modernized, yet stayed the same was the Opel Kadett E/Pontiac Lemans/Daewoo Nexia which remained in production from 1984-2016.