2025 LEXUS RZ — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

Beginning in September 2025, I experienced respiratory symptoms, including coughing, chest discomfort, and shortness of breath, that appeared to be triggered when entering or operating my vehicle. The symptoms consistently improved when I was not using the vehicle and returned upon re-exposure. The specific component responsible is UNKNOWN. I suspect a possible cabin air quality, HVAC, or material-related issue, but I am not able to identify a specific failed part. My safety was put at risk because symptoms occurred while driving, including during traffic conditions, which affected my ability to breathe comfortably and concentrate. The issue has been reproducible. The vehicle was inspected by a Lexus dealership and later by a Toyota/Lexus Field Technical Specialist. No warning lights or dashboard alerts were present. The inspection did not identify a cause, but the symptoms persisted. The vehicle remains available for inspection. This report is being submitted to document a potential vehicle safety or air quality concern for further review.

While operating my 2025 Lexus RZ 300e at normal road speeds, the vehicle experienced a sudden and dangerous propulsion loss when the traction battery reached 0% state of charge. The only advance notice was a single soft audible alert. There were no escalating warnings (visual or audible) and no meaningful low-battery reserve to allow the driver to safely exit traffic or reach a charging location. Within seconds of the single alert, the vehicle entered reduced-power “limp mode,” creating an immediate traffic hazard. This abrupt reduction in speed occurred in active traffic among large trucks, putting my safety and the safety of other road users at serious risk. The lack of progressive alerts and absence of a usable reserve buffer prevented any safe corrective action and increased the risk of a collision or injury. Lexus marketing materials, sales claims, and the owner’s manual indicate that the RZ’s battery management system provides intelligent, progressive warnings and adequate reserve energy to prevent drivers from being stranded. My vehicle did not perform in accordance with these stated safety features. This represents a potential defect in the warning system and energy reserve calibration. The vehicle is currently in the custody of the authorized dealership. I requested that the service department attempt to recreate the incident to determine whether the system functions as designed. They refused, citing an open claim with Lexus corporate. Lexus corporate closed my initial claim without investigation six days after it was filed and has not inspected the vehicle. This failure mode—no escalating alerts, no sufficient reserve, and sudden loss of propulsion—is a clear safety concern that should be investigated for possible noncompliance with FMVSS requirements for driver warnings and vehicle control.

While operating my 2025 Lexus RZ 300e at normal road speeds, the vehicle experienced a sudden and dangerous propulsion loss when the traction battery reached 0% state of charge. The only advance notice was a single soft audible alert. There were no escalating warnings (visual or audible) and no meaningful low-battery reserve to allow the driver to safely exit traffic or reach a charging location. Within seconds of the single alert, the vehicle entered reduced-power “limp mode,” creating an immediate traffic hazard. This abrupt reduction in speed occurred in active traffic among large trucks, putting my safety and the safety of other road users at serious risk. The lack of progressive alerts and absence of a usable reserve buffer prevented any safe corrective action and increased the risk of a collision or injury. Lexus marketing materials, sales claims, and the owner’s manual indicate that the RZ’s battery management system provides intelligent, progressive warnings and adequate reserve energy to prevent drivers from being stranded. My vehicle did not perform in accordance with these stated safety features. This represents a potential defect in the warning system and energy reserve calibration. The vehicle is currently in the custody of the authorized dealership. I requested that the service department attempt to recreate the incident to determine whether the system functions as designed. They refused, citing an open claim with Lexus corporate. Lexus corporate closed my initial claim without investigation six days after it was filed and has not inspected the vehicle. This failure mode—no escalating alerts, no sufficient reserve, and sudden loss of propulsion—is a clear safety concern that should be investigated for possible noncompliance with FMVSS requirements for driver warnings and vehicle control.

While operating my 2025 Lexus RZ 300e at normal road speeds, the vehicle experienced a sudden and dangerous propulsion loss when the traction battery reached 0% state of charge. The only advance notice was a single soft audible alert. There were no escalating warnings (visual or audible) and no meaningful low-battery reserve to allow the driver to safely exit traffic or reach a charging location. Within seconds of the single alert, the vehicle entered reduced-power “limp mode,” creating an immediate traffic hazard. This abrupt reduction in speed occurred in active traffic among large trucks, putting my safety and the safety of other road users at serious risk. The lack of progressive alerts and absence of a usable reserve buffer prevented any safe corrective action and increased the risk of a collision or injury. Lexus marketing materials, sales claims, and the owner’s manual indicate that the RZ’s battery management system provides intelligent, progressive warnings and adequate reserve energy to prevent drivers from being stranded. My vehicle did not perform in accordance with these stated safety features. This represents a potential defect in the warning system and energy reserve calibration. The vehicle is currently in the custody of the authorized dealership. I requested that the service department attempt to recreate the incident to determine whether the system functions as designed. They refused, citing an open claim with Lexus corporate. Lexus corporate closed my initial claim without investigation six days after it was filed and has not inspected the vehicle. This failure mode—no escalating alerts, no sufficient reserve, and sudden loss of propulsion—is a clear safety concern that should be investigated for possible noncompliance with FMVSS requirements for driver warnings and vehicle control.