I'd Never Considered A Lexus ...

[Womble72]

Totally agree, 25k would be a lot of round town driving, lol, when I had my diesel I'd hit the rev limiter about once a week, 2nd and 3rd gear to blast out all deposits, obviously once warm, pdf filters are a gov emission statement to global issues, they're a con, can only be cleaned out once, then a replacement is needed, normally about £1500, the old one then gets put in landfill due to contamination, so NOT environmentally friendly like we think, worse thing ever invented, it's does a diesel good to hit the limiter a couple of times weekly, as it does a petrol, monthly. But anything under 25000 miles you may as well buy a petrol, as you are no better off financially.

[Womble72]

2 minutes ago, Cracksta said:

I think the 220D has been knocked a bit harder than it should however specifically talking is250 vs is220D, it seems the IS250 petrol is the preferred model regarding reliability. Probably due to how people's driving styles (lots of stop starts and not enough time to get the car hot or on long runs).

In regards to petrol vs diesel, they both have pros and cons and people who buy a diesel should know exactly what they are getting themselves into/driving style/etc.

In this thread, we may have saved the OP from headaches of getting a 220D down the road but this carbon build/DPF issue exists on other cars too so we cant taint the 220D alone.

The decision it seems that an petrol is250 SE-L / F sport model with auto seems to be the favored here but thats not to say its the best car here.

IF I did the mileage I used to I'd have a 220d over anything else out there, I'm on my 4th Lexus now, don't know what else is buy, and I still prefer the old IS to the new one, didn't think much of the new one

[Linas.P]

I don't have much more to say except to agree - 250 auto is the way to go ( I had 3 myself and they all were excellent)!

As for 250 vs. 220/200d - I believe it is not the 220/200d being terrible, but rather 250 being so brilliant which makes that whoooooping gap. Recently drove my friends BMW 320d manual... and it feels the same if not worse than 220d.

Again that is more of the bad combination of gearbox and diesel engine in 220/200d. Another important thing is that people are using it in the city for short journeys where it must not be ever used! I believe that generally people who use this car for motorway driving don't have much issues at all.  

[toffee_pie]

has anyone even driven a manual? I am one of the few people with a manual and have nothing bad to say about it, its also faster than the auto and no worse than any other manual box i had. If I was keeping this car I would probably put a F Sport Clutch and flywheel but I am looking out for a CL55 Kompressor.

The tax of course is higher on a manual but I tend to ignore tax, i pay taxes for everything and a few hundred quid either way wont make you end up sleeping in a tent.

[Cracksta]

I had an fto with a 2 litre v6 engine with manual gearbox, smooth as silk the engine, gears sometimes clunky. Had manual all my life, this is first auto for me and it's such a joy to drive. All down to preference.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

15 hours ago, toffee_pie said:

has anyone even driven a manual? I am one of the few people with a manual and have nothing bad to say about it, its also faster than the auto and no worse than any other manual box i had. If I was keeping this car I would probably put a F Sport Clutch and flywheel but I am looking out for a CL55 Kompressor.

The tax of course is higher on a manual but I tend to ignore tax, i pay taxes for everything and a few hundred quid either way wont make you end up sleeping in a tent.

I have never driven IS250 manual, but have driven 220d manual (obviously) and all my cars before IS250 were manual without exceptions.

For me personally, the manual should normally be the choice for reliability, better fuel economy, lower maintenance costs and lower tax. As I personally have no issues using clutch or manual I would in many cases actually prefer to have a manual car, BUT:

• for all modern cars fuel economy on auto is no longer an issue (unless you are manual/clutch master and somehow can magically save the fuel),
• in case of IS250 automatic as well is more reliable and therefore cheaper to maintain,
• finally, even more cheaper to tax.

It is not like manual is very bad on Lexus IS250, but Auto is definitely better - more comfortable, reliable, cheaper to maintain and to tax.

If I would live somewhere outside of the city, I probably would consider manual as well, but for short drive in London in congested areas automatic all the way.

P.S. When I tried 220d manual on motorway it was unable to keep steady 70, nor 80 MPH on autopilot and I had to shift down to keep it going uphill, which kind of defeats the point of autopilot on motorway. I guess this is not the case for 250 as it has more power, but would be interesting to know how that works.

[toffee_pie]

You can go comparing a 220d Manual to a is250 manual. Apples and oranges. I am not aware of the automatic been more reliable than the manual also? Maybe you are referring to the 220d.

I have had my car since 2014 and have had absolutely no issues whatsoever. 

Just want to set things straigh, but I agree if someone does alot Of stop start driving an automatic makes sense. This is true of any marque, not just a lexus. 

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

You can go comparing a 220d Manual to a is250 manual. Apples and oranges. I am not aware of the automatic been more reliable than the manual also? Maybe you are referring to the 220d.

I have had my car since 2014 and have had absolutely no issues whatsoever. 

Just want to set things straigh, but I agree if someone does alot Of stop start driving an automatic makes sense. This is true of any marque, not just a lexus. 

Maybe I am wrong, but the actual manual gearbox is the same on 250 and 220/200. Obviously, 250 manual is going to be more joy to drive than 220/200, but not going to be more reliable etc.

We need to establish one fact - there are no BAD Lexus cars, just some are better than others e.g. 250 is clearly better than 220/200, and makes much more sense in any aspect. It doesn't mean that 220/200 is bad car. I am sure that manual BWM 320d, MB C200d and Audi A4 2.0td are very similar cars ... well the least they all not very nice to drive, Lexus at least have the best built quality and best materials from others, thought (for unknown reason) they decided not to pair IS220/200 with automatic gearbox.

Back on the topic of 250 MT vs. AT. I never said MT is unreliable, but for fact AT is actually cheaper to maintain. To start with, AT has no issues with the clutch changes (and other related parts), no need of oil change (though is being done as well, but less important than MT).

• True - if you manage to destroy AT it will cost more to replace than MT, but it happens so rarely that overall Lexus owners are spending less of AT, than on MT. 
• True - IS (2gen) is fairly new car (maximum 10 years), not many of them have covered more than 200k and hence it is within AT reliability range. Maybe in 10 years time the MT will prove that they are more reliable than AT (especially when cars will start reaching 200k, 300k), but in current day to day costs they are less expensive to maintain.
• AT are usually less stressed, because ... well you know - not everyone uses the clutch right. This is particularly important for used cars. Majority of ATs are actually in better shape.

So what I am saying is not that MT is the one to avoid, but that for casual driving, short distances, city and for more comfort the AT is better. Even more it is cheaper to tax, and requires less regular maintenance (fluids, clutches) and even more it is less what can go wrong with them (like premature wear and ther of gearbox parts).

 

[toffee_pie]

Think you are a bit off the mark here, have you seen the number of components and ecus In the auto box?  Not saying there is anything wrong it it at all.

 

As for the manual vs auto - you had a diesel, the issue here is not that the manual transmission is common to both but the fact they are entirely different power plants and making judgements on a diesel version has absolutely no relevance to the petrol equivalent. 

 

 

[Linas.P]

Are you saying, that the gearbox itself is different in 250? (this might be the case - I have really just assumed they are the same all the time).

Yes I have seen the IS250 auto box, that is what I have said - if one ever go wrong that will be huge expense - they simply don't go wrong (yet). And while they don't they actually requires less maintenance.

[toffee_pie]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I have never driven IS250 manual, but have driven 220d manual (obviously) and all my cars before IS250 were manual without exceptions.

For me personally, the manual should normally be the choice for reliability, better fuel economy, lower maintenance costs and lower tax. As I personally have no issues using clutch or manual I would in many cases actually prefer to have a manual car, BUT:

• for all modern cars fuel economy on auto is no longer an issue (unless you are manual/clutch master and somehow can magically save the fuel),
• in case of IS250 automatic as well is more reliable and therefore cheaper to maintain,
• finally, even more cheaper to tax.

It is not like manual is very bad on Lexus IS250, but Auto is definitely better - more comfortable, reliable, cheaper to maintain and to tax.

If I would live somewhere outside of the city, I probably would consider manual as well, but for short drive in London in congested areas automatic all the way.

P.S. When I tried 220d manual on motorway it was unable to keep steady 70, nor 80 MPH on autopilot and I had to shift down to keep it going uphill, which kind of defeats the point of autopilot on motorway. I guess this is not the case for 250 as it has more power, but would be interesting to know how that works.

The whole thing you are saying is nonsense as you are talking about a 220d, which must be truly horrific if it cant hold 70 or 80mph on a motorway. Seriously..! 

As for manuals being more expensive to maintain, again that is a bit nonsense also. Sure if they are driven by someone who cant drive properly the clutch will be shagged but that is true of any manual car and its easy to see a bust clutch a few minutes into a test drive.

Having said that I am absolutely no doubt that the auto box in the is250 is indeed very good.

[Shahpor]

Not quite sure what you mean by not being able to hold 70 or 80?  70 is an issue because of the gearing, but holding 80mph in 6th is fine and the car goes well.

As for manuals being more expensive, the problem is that clutch's are designed to wear out, so it a matter of when, not if, it needs changing.  Add to that the fact that modern cars need their dual mass flywheels replaced at the same time, and it is a costly fix.  Granted it doesn't need changing very often, but by buying most second hand cars, you always run the risk the clutch will start slipping at any time.

On the other hand, in theory at least, an automatic gearbox should last the life of the car without issue.

[toffee_pie]

but its not really an issue IMO, its easy to see if a clutch is on the way out > much room to haggle on price, and they are faster than autos. I am not totally against auto boxes here but the one on the is250 is given serious slag and mostly by people who have never drive one it seems.!  

[noby76]

thing is there is not much of a difference if any between the manual IS250 and Auto 250 paper figures confirm the manual is about 0.3 seconds quicker to 60 compared to the auto. thats not even a cars length hence i recon most opt/prefer the auto.nothing between them in top speed either.

[toffee_pie]

they are certainly more widely available and cheaper to tax, two reasons why everyone says they are 'better' by the looks of things as only a few people on here actually own them.

[Cracksta]

Are we still talking about this? I think i've lost the point of this thread now.

IS250 MT vs AT is the topic right?

I believe both are good, it seems people here favor AT more than MT. This my own opinion:

1. Tax was cheaper compared to MT
2. It's not a proper performance car as such so i went for AT for relaxed driving and I hated MT when i used to get stuck in traffic in my old job (Never had an AT before, this is the first time)
3. Went for petrol because i do a lot of stop/starts and only do approx 7K annual mileage
4. There is a lot of threads about issues with the diesel, most are due to the driving style but my own circumstance does not warrant a diesel.
5. Because the petrol versions are V6 and they sound awesome, smooth engine, experience from a different V6 car.

[Linas.P]

On 04/02/2016 at 7:37 PM, toffee_pie said:

The whole thing you are saying is nonsense as you are talking about a 220d.

I am not sure if the misunderstanding comes from my english being not good enough or something else... 

Let's park it here saying that the MT/AT thing is personal preference. There are cars were I prefer MT e.g. I was always astounded to see Subaru Impreza WRX with AT, or Nissan 300ZX, or Toyota Supra with AT.

I personally believe, that AT cars were historically associated with expensive maintenance and bad fuel economy. As this not the case in IS250 and the car itself not being very hardcore sports car - the AT became favorite choice of many drivers. I woudl say "added luxury and comfort" at no extra cost.

On 04/02/2016 at 9:27 PM, Shahpor said:

Not quite sure what you mean by not being able to hold 70 or 80?  70 is an issue because of the gearing, but holding 80mph in 6th is fine and the car goes well.

I think that is not very surprising, simply car doesn't have enough power in longer/steeper uphill driving at 70mph@6th gear (and in my experience 80). It starts slowing down until it reaches like 60 and very low rpm and the ride comes very uncomfortable and it makes you to change down to 5th. That actually happens to my IS250 AT, it is just that the AT box changes the gear when it thinks there is not enough torque and you don't feel anything. On manual you actually need to intercept that moment by quickly changing down before it (almost) chokes-up.

[toffee_pie]

38 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am not sure if the misunderstanding comes from my english being not good enough or something else... 

Let's park it here saying that the MT/AT thing is personal preference. There are cars were I prefer MT e.g. I was always astounded to see Subaru Impreza WRX with AT, or Nissan 300ZX, or Toyota Supra with AT.

I personally believe, that AT cars were historically associated with expensive maintenance and bad fuel economy. As this not the case in IS250 and the car itself not being very hardcore sports car - the AT became favorite choice of many drivers. I woudl say "added luxury and comfort" at no extra cost.

I think that is not very surprising, simply car doesn't have enough power in longer/steeper uphill driving at 70mph@6th gear (and in my experience 80). It starts slowing down until it reaches like 60 and very low rpm and the ride comes very uncomfortable and it makes you to change down to 5th. That actually happens to my IS250 AT, it is just that the AT box changes the gear when it thinks there is not enough torque and you don't feel anything. On manual you actually need to intercept that moment by quickly changing down before it (almost) chokes-up.

I knew the diesel was bad but didn't expect it to be this bad, my is250 can hold its own at 80mph (or more) easily, of course going up inclines you can feel the torque kick in when cruise is on, like on any petrol car. (what you explain on the auto box above) but its all intuitive.

the diesel really seems a shocking car.

[Shahpor]

I think Linas is exaggerating somewhat.

At 80mph, my 220D has no problems going up inclines in 6th.  Yes, it requires more power, but then all cars do.  Mine will also pull uphill at 75mph in 6th, but it will struggle more, so changing to 5th is better.

And now I think we are just going round in circles, so can we just put it down to personal preference please? 

[Shahpor]

Oh, and Eric, I am going to be a resident of Hampshire soon (near Basingstoke), so we could easily get together and compare cars 

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Shahpor said:

I think Linas is exaggerating somewhat.

Maybe just that particular IS220d then... Cannot argue with that.

I think the main reason I am advocating here for AT is that the it was clearly said it is for short journeys....rather than long cruises on motorway.

On 04/09/2015 at 5:37 PM, gypmaster said:

Yeah, mainly short journeys but with a weekly 50m run.

That doesn't make 250MT bad car, nor even 220/200d (even thought for my personal preference they have too weak engine for relatively heavy car and no AT option).

[toffee_pie]

I've got confused long ago as to what it's trying to achieve. My car is manual and I do city driving and I'm not complaining.  

Some prefer manual, others automatic. Manual is fine as you can control gear changes and throttle response easy - i can hear the v6 Growl easy with gear changes. 

Every barge needs a auto box but the is250 Is hardly a outright barge. I'm sure the AT transmission is good on them but too few people on here have is250 with MT so how can any comparison be made.