Recommended Posts

The general technical standard of driving in germany is mostly very good, and much higher than the UK. They do things we would perceive as very aggressive but they are the expected norm there. Once you have your head in that space and drive the way that they do then it works and works well. Generally german drivers have very good awareness of their vehicle and limits and pay better attention to their driving than UK. 

Unrestricted speed is to the germans like the second amendment is to americans - they can't really justify it but will fight tooth and nail for it. However, the geography, size and population spread of germany better lends itself than the crowded UK - some of my german colleagues (we do a lot of business there and have sales offices in Wiesbaden and Munich) think nothing of commuting 200km each way daily ("less than an hour on a good day"). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been an interesting read, especially the latest posts comparing driving standards in the UK vs Germany. I've never driven in Germany, but have heard from those that have - and that have lived there - that lane discipline is much better as recent posts have also noted.

The latest road fatality figures that I can find (from 2015) are enclosed for those interested. Germany is by no stretch the worst, but the UK performs better (in the sense that fewer deaths is better) and that surprises me based on the anecdotal evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

From other sources I've read, the trend in Germany has been reducing fatalities faster than in the UK.

Anyway, I think what I've established from reading this thread is that some drivers want a faster car and some don't. Some consider the 300h perfectly adequate while others want more power. Some would prefer to stick with rwd, while others think the ES is a step down from the GS. I think that's what thirty-five pages has shown me...people want different things. Who knew? 🤓

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Anyway, I think what I've established from reading this thread is that some drivers want a faster car and some don't. Some consider the 300h perfectly adequate while others want more power. Some would prefer to stick with rwd, while others think the ES is a step down from the GS. I think that's what thirty-five pages has shown me...people want different things. Who knew? 🤓

 

 

Does this mean the end of End of The GS in the UK?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OldTrout said:

Does this mean the end of End of The GS in the UK?

^^ Unless somebody can get Lexus UK to re-open the GS withdrawal agreement, I guess it does...😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

This has been an interesting read, especially the latest posts comparing driving standards in the UK vs Germany. I've never driven in Germany, but have heard from those that have - and that have lived there - that lane discipline is much better as recent posts have also noted.

The latest road fatality figures that I can find (from 2015) are enclosed for those interested. Germany is by no stretch the worst, but the UK performs better (in the sense that fewer deaths is better) and that surprises me based on the anecdotal evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

From other sources I've read, the trend in Germany has been reducing fatalities faster than in the UK.

Anyway, I think what I've established from reading this thread is that some drivers want a faster car and some don't. Some consider the 300h perfectly adequate while others want more power. Some would prefer to stick with rwd, while others think the ES is a step down from the GS. I think that's what thirty-five pages has shown me...people want different things. Who knew? 🤓

 

 

We all knew Ed.

Beauty (and most other things) lies in the eye of the beholder !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

...people want different things. Who knew? 

That was pretty much what I was banging about from begging - give me RC350 and I would have no issues what so ever with other cars in the range... literally could not care less.

As for Germany figures - no surprise there, in UK you literally cannot reach speed which would result in death 90% of the time. This doesn't mean German or UK divers are better is that simply UK is pretty much never ending grid lock and one needs to be utter **** to be able to die while queuing at 20MPH, however once road clears up it becomes apparent that driving standards are quite poor.

@Jamesf1 as for driving @120MPH being thing of luck... in UK yes. In Germany I haven't been cut-off so far... I have to brake few times because car in outside lane has not moved over or haven't accelerated enough to overtake in time, but it is usually mild i.e. from 120MPH>90MPH. In UK driving at 50MPH I am being cut-off almost constantly... I mean today driving from work in 17 miles I probably had to 4 emergency stops, because people cut-in not only without looking, but without even indicating and literally a foot in front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long post...please bear with me:

I think that people may be missing the real points here and there seems to be too much splitting of hairs on top trumps and technicalities that really don't figure at all in the marketing side.

Lexus doesn't make marketing decisions based on straw poles about what people say that they might or might not want.  They make marketing decisions much like any equivalent car manufacturer, based on sales figures particularly those from the largest markets.  They do not care, or even think about how this might affect those "loyal" lexus customers who (like me) mourn the passing of possibly their best all round saloon, the GS.  Whatever opinions are bandied about on personal preference, the fact remains, sales figures to one side, that the 3.0 V6 and the 3.5V6 were amongst the most reliable petrol engines on the planet by all measured assessments over the years and that they offered the best compromise of economy to performance.   

Whether we need a 3.5 V6 is irrelevant otherwise we'd all be conned into buying the absolutely godawful plethora of turbo/supercharged 1.5 litre direct injection disposable monstrosities.  Before anyone gets hurt by that remark, it's incontrovertible that issues such as petrol dilution of oil sumps from direct injection cold running (cold start) foibles, equals more frequent oil changes and less engine protection, and that's before we even get to a puny little 1.2 or 1.5  motor, lugging about 1 to 1.5 tonnes, stressed to the nines to achieve over 200BHP and high torque figures.  All the evidence from Honda and Ford shows beyond all reasonable doubt that these engines are problematic, short lived (by comparison with non-direct injection normally aspirated larger engines) and as such the carbon footprint over time is only likely to be higher. 

You can argue either way and try to justify your points but for some of us, we don't care if technology provides an alternative. The simple fact is that many of us don't care for those alternatives, in terms of pride of ownership, of likely longevity (most of these cars are frequently sold as disposable assets with shorter lifespans likely which helps boost car manufacturers towards their future model sales) or of the driving experience.  And please, if anyone is tempted to respond by "telling" me what I would or wouldn't like or should like...don't go there! 

Some of the remarks (no names but we know who I refer to) on this thread have been downright arrogant, uncalled for, rude and aggressive.  Some folk need to grasp the fact that we are all entitled to our opinions so to call people "stupid" is bang out of order on what is usually a more gentlemanly and better mannered forum.  Might I humbly suggest that we try, at least, to keep it that way?

There's a hell of a lot positive about the normally aspirated straight 6 or Vee 6.  It's inherently smoother, better balanced, and in anything over 2.5 litre upwards, produces ample torque and power whilst remaining under-stressed, by and large bombproof reliability wise, simpler, and over time, likely to have far better longevity and durability.  Some of us want a 3 litre or 3.5 because we prefer a lazier larger, less stressed engine that makes adequate power.  This isn't about 0-60 top trumps (I couldn't care less what a 1.5 turbo 4 pot does the 0-60 in...really, it's an irrelevance) because any modern 3 litre normally aspirated car will have more than enough shove for safe overtaking and relaxed long legged motorway cruising, or for lugging loads up steep hills.

Personally, I wished that I had kept my GS300.  It was far and away the best car (and one of the better driving experiences) I ever owned, and I have owned fast German saloons and  estates.

What this whole thread boils down to is that Lexus are discontinuing (in the UK at least where sales figures of around 350 cars per year make no sense to them) possibly the best all rounder that they've ever made.  Whether it is the "best" is irrelevant to them or to us, as sales figures are what it's all about. The GS was never picked up in anywhere like the same numbers of the target audience....executive company car fleets, because 1) it was sold at too high a cost compared with the economies of scale of BMW/Audi/Mercedes to compete and because 2) it appealed only to those buying (rather than leasing or as a company vehicle) to the over 40's due to initial purchase price and insurance. 

Take those main contributing factors to low sales away and compare the car like for like and it many ways it betters the competition, in reliability, comfort, finish and refinement.

Performance figure comparisons belong on paper.  The driving experience is what it's all about and sadly, part of that was lost when the switch to hybrids came along due to the weight penalty it brought with it and most certainly to the switch to fwd.  Lexus do a good job (except I'd argue with the CT which is has imho appalling ride quality) and have made cars like the GS and even the RX hide their mass well.

People in the market for the GS I don't think will want the LS.  It's that much larger and costlier to buy and run, new or used, plus costs more to insure, and in the case of the hybrid, has a pathetic boot size for such a large car.

The irony of all of this is that the best selling Lexus in the UK also remains the worst Lexus in the UK (the CT) which is beaten in just about every area except internal finish by its competitors and especially on ride comfort, which goes to prove that none of these decisions are made on what a great car the GS was.  It was, and remains a great car.  So where does that leave the customers who hanker after a 3.5 V6?  Well, Lexus are mistaken if they think for a second that people are likely to stick with them and accept a 300h or the underpowered and rather rough running lump that the 250 is.  I wouldn't.  Those customers will be lost to Lexus but that doesn't really matter to them because they only amounted to 350-odd annually anyway compared with 21,000 for the RX, or even more with the CT.  Hard facts, because running a successful business is about profit and reinvestment.

Are electric-only cars really viable presently?  No.  You might like them an want to argue the opposite, but once you look into what viability entails, none of the arguments I've so far heard bear up to close scrutiny.  Not if you do loads of miles and not based on purchase costs and most definitely NOT on carbon footprint.  You have to look at the efficiency of getting electric from burning gas (where a majority of our electricity generation still comes from) in terms of the generation process, the distribution (and distribution losses) and charging losses (Battery efficiency) and motive efficiency (motors and transmission).  Petrol likely still remains more efficient and we will not have national capacity for a switch to electric any time soon, by all official estimates, not for well over a decade or two.  So should you feel bad about running a 3 litre V6 until such time as things change?  No, of course not.  From every aspect including durability/ longevity and whole life carbon footprint it remains  a valid choice.  Sadly though, the powers that be disagree and will tax the behind off you should you ignore them and decide to buy one.  Think about how that affects sales too. The reasons for people buying into electric-only are more due to the worries about particulates (valid and understandable), Nox (ditto), about government subsidies and about tax breaks making them suitable for urbanites and semi-urbanites who do relatively low annual mileages where cost of ownership may be lower over any given annual period.

Not all of us want an electric only car (I certainly don't, at least not yet) and I'll be honest and say I only went hybrid because the car I wanted was still offered as a V6, and over the years, I have loved every 6 cylinder motor I've owned from my 1970's Triumph 2000TC through to recent cars like the BMW and Lexus models owned and because I wanted the extra grunt.  We also have a butterfly-friendly Honda i-vtec and it wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding unless revved until the valves cry out for mercy.  It was a decision of the head.  A V6 is a decision of the heart as much as the head.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

Well, Lexus are mistaken if they think for a second that people are likely to stick with them and accept a 300h or the underpowered and rather rough running lump that the 250 is. 

Spot on. BMW alone sell thousands of six pot petrol engine vehicles in the UK. I'd wager sales of 3 litre petrol engines aren't far off total Lexus sales in this country.

There is a market out there. Why Lexus are ignoring this sector or just pretending it doesn't exist any more is a mystery but has been debated on here for years (with frustration for some) 

The fact Toyota lumped a BMW B58 straight six and gearbox into the new Supra is all telling . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

Long post...please bear with me:

I think that people may be missing the real points here and there seems to be too much splitting of hairs on top trumps and technicalities that really don't figure at all in the marketing side.

Lexus doesn't make marketing decisions based on straw poles about what people say that they might or might not want.  They make marketing decisions much like any equivalent car manufacturer, based on sales figures particularly those from the largest markets.  They do not care, or even think about how this might affect those "loyal" lexus customers who (like me) mourn the passing of possibly their best all round saloon, the GS.  Whatever opinions are bandied about on personal preference, the fact remains, sales figures to one side, that the 3.0 V6 and the 3.5V6 were amongst the most reliable petrol engines on the planet by all measured assessments over the years and that they offered the best compromise of economy to performance.   

Whether we need a 3.5 V6 is irrelevant otherwise we'd all be conned into buying the absolutely godawful plethora of turbo/supercharged 1.5 litre direct injection disposable monstrosities.  Before anyone gets hurt by that remark, it's incontrovertible that issues such as petrol dilution of oil sumps from direct injection cold running (cold start) foibles, equals more frequent oil changes and less engine protection, and that's before we even get to a puny little 1.2 or 1.5  motor, lugging about 1 to 1.5 tonnes, stressed to the nines to achieve over 200BHP and high torque figures.  All the evidence from Honda and Ford shows beyond all reasonable doubt that these engines are problematic, short lived (by comparison with non-direct injection normally aspirated larger engines) and as such the carbon footprint over time is only likely to be higher. 

You can argue either way and try to justify your points but for some of us, we don't care if technology provides an alternative. The simple fact is that many of us don't care for those alternatives, in terms of pride of ownership, of likely longevity (most of these cars are frequently sold as disposable assets with shorter lifespans likely which helps boost car manufacturers towards their future model sales) or of the driving experience.  And please, if anyone is tempted to respond by "telling" me what I would or wouldn't like or should like...don't go there! 

Some of the remarks (no names but we know who I refer to) on this thread have been downright arrogant, uncalled for, rude and aggressive.  Some folk need to grasp the fact that we are all entitled to our opinions so to call people "stupid" is bang out of order on what is usually a more gentlemanly and better mannered forum.  Might I humbly suggest that we try, at least, to keep it that way?

There's a hell of a lot positive about the normally aspirated straight 6 or Vee 6.  It's inherently smoother, better balanced, and in anything over 2.5 litre upwards, produces ample torque and power whilst remaining under-stressed, by and large bombproof reliability wise, simpler, and over time, likely to have far better longevity and durability.  Some of us want a 3 litre or 3.5 because we prefer a lazier larger, less stressed engine that makes adequate power.  This isn't about 0-60 top trumps (I couldn't care less what a 1.5 turbo 4 pot does the 0-60 in...really, it's an irrelevance) because any modern 3 litre normally aspirated car will have more than enough shove for safe overtaking and relaxed long legged motorway cruising, or for lugging loads up steep hills.

Personally, I wished that I had kept my GS300.  It was far and away the best car (and one of the better driving experiences) I ever owned, and I have owned fast German saloons and  estates.

What this whole thread boils down to is that Lexus are discontinuing (in the UK at least where sales figures of around 350 cars per year make no sense to them) possibly the best all rounder that they've ever made.  Whether it is the "best" is irrelevant to them or to us, as sales figures are what it's all about. The GS was never picked up in anywhere like the same numbers of the target audience....executive company car fleets, because 1) it was sold at too high a cost compared with the economies of scale of BMW/Audi/Mercedes to compete and because 2) it appealed only to those buying (rather than leasing or as a company vehicle) to the over 40's due to initial purchase price and insurance. 

Take those main contributing factors to low sales away and compare the car like for like and it many ways it betters the competition, in reliability, comfort, finish and refinement.

Performance figure comparisons belong on paper.  The driving experience is what it's all about and sadly, part of that was lost when the switch to hybrids came along due to the weight penalty it brought with it and most certainly to the switch to fwd.  Lexus do a good job (except I'd argue with the CT which is has imho appalling ride quality) and have made cars like the GS and even the RX hide their mass well.

People in the market for the GS I don't think will want the LS.  It's that much larger and costlier to buy and run, new or used, plus costs more to insure, and in the case of the hybrid, has a pathetic boot size for such a large car.

The irony of all of this is that the best selling Lexus in the UK also remains the worst Lexus in the UK (the CT) which is beaten in just about every area except internal finish by its competitors and especially on ride comfort, which goes to prove that none of these decisions are made on what a great car the GS was.  It was, and remains a great car.  So where does that leave the customers who hanker after a 3.5 V6?  Well, Lexus are mistaken if they think for a second that people are likely to stick with them and accept a 300h or the underpowered and rather rough running lump that the 250 is.  I wouldn't.  Those customers will be lost to Lexus but that doesn't really matter to them because they only amounted to 350-odd annually anyway compared with 21,000 for the RX, or even more with the CT.  Hard facts, because running a successful business is about profit and reinvestment.

Are electric-only cars really viable presently?  No.  You might like them an want to argue the opposite, but once you look into what viability entails, none of the arguments I've so far heard bear up to close scrutiny.  Not if you do loads of miles and not based on purchase costs and most definitely NOT on carbon footprint.  You have to look at the efficiency of getting electric from burning gas (where a majority of our electricity generation still comes from) in terms of the generation process, the distribution (and distribution losses) and charging losses (battery efficiency) and motive efficiency (motors and transmission).  Petrol likely still remains more efficient and we will not have national capacity for a switch to electric any time soon, by all official estimates, not for well over a decade or two.  So should you feel bad about running a 3 litre V6 until such time as things change?  No, of course not.  From every aspect including durability/ longevity and whole life carbon footprint it remains  a valid choice.  Sadly though, the powers that be disagree and will tax the behind off you should you ignore them and decide to buy one.  Think about how that affects sales too. The reasons for people buying into electric-only are more due to the worries about particulates (valid and understandable), Nox (ditto), about government subsidies and about tax breaks making them suitable for urbanites and semi-urbanites who do relatively low annual mileages where cost of ownership may be lower over any given annual period.

Not all of us want an electric only car (I certainly don't, at least not yet) and I'll be honest and say I only went hybrid because the car I wanted was still offered as a V6, and over the years, I have loved every 6 cylinder motor I've owned from my 1970's Triumph 2000TC through to recent cars like the BMW and Lexus models owned and because I wanted the extra grunt.  We also have a butterfly-friendly Honda i-vtec and it wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding unless revved until the valves cry out for mercy.  It was a decision of the head.  A V6 is a decision of the heart as much as the head.

I`d give that essay an A++

No more to be said.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

Long post...please bear with me:

I think that people may be missing the real points here and there seems to be too much splitting of hairs on top trumps and technicalities that really don't figure at all in the marketing side.

Lexus doesn't make marketing decisions based on straw poles about what people say that they might or might not want.  They make marketing decisions much like any equivalent car manufacturer, based on sales figures particularly those from the largest markets.  They do not care, or even think about how this might affect those "loyal" lexus customers who (like me) mourn the passing of possibly their best all round saloon, the GS.  Whatever opinions are bandied about on personal preference, the fact remains, sales figures to one side, that the 3.0 V6 and the 3.5V6 were amongst the most reliable petrol engines on the planet by all measured assessments over the years and that they offered the best compromise of economy to performance.   

Whether we need a 3.5 V6 is irrelevant otherwise we'd all be conned into buying the absolutely godawful plethora of turbo/supercharged 1.5 litre direct injection disposable monstrosities.  Before anyone gets hurt by that remark, it's incontrovertible that issues such as petrol dilution of oil sumps from direct injection cold running (cold start) foibles, equals more frequent oil changes and less engine protection, and that's before we even get to a puny little 1.2 or 1.5  motor, lugging about 1 to 1.5 tonnes, stressed to the nines to achieve over 200BHP and high torque figures.  All the evidence from Honda and Ford shows beyond all reasonable doubt that these engines are problematic, short lived (by comparison with non-direct injection normally aspirated larger engines) and as such the carbon footprint over time is only likely to be higher. 

You can argue either way and try to justify your points but for some of us, we don't care if technology provides an alternative. The simple fact is that many of us don't care for those alternatives, in terms of pride of ownership, of likely longevity (most of these cars are frequently sold as disposable assets with shorter lifespans likely which helps boost car manufacturers towards their future model sales) or of the driving experience.  And please, if anyone is tempted to respond by "telling" me what I would or wouldn't like or should like...don't go there! 

Some of the remarks (no names but we know who I refer to) on this thread have been downright arrogant, uncalled for, rude and aggressive.  Some folk need to grasp the fact that we are all entitled to our opinions so to call people "stupid" is bang out of order on what is usually a more gentlemanly and better mannered forum.  Might I humbly suggest that we try, at least, to keep it that way?

There's a hell of a lot positive about the normally aspirated straight 6 or Vee 6.  It's inherently smoother, better balanced, and in anything over 2.5 litre upwards, produces ample torque and power whilst remaining under-stressed, by and large bombproof reliability wise, simpler, and over time, likely to have far better longevity and durability.  Some of us want a 3 litre or 3.5 because we prefer a lazier larger, less stressed engine that makes adequate power.  This isn't about 0-60 top trumps (I couldn't care less what a 1.5 turbo 4 pot does the 0-60 in...really, it's an irrelevance) because any modern 3 litre normally aspirated car will have more than enough shove for safe overtaking and relaxed long legged motorway cruising, or for lugging loads up steep hills.

Personally, I wished that I had kept my GS300.  It was far and away the best car (and one of the better driving experiences) I ever owned, and I have owned fast German saloons and  estates.

What this whole thread boils down to is that Lexus are discontinuing (in the UK at least where sales figures of around 350 cars per year make no sense to them) possibly the best all rounder that they've ever made.  Whether it is the "best" is irrelevant to them or to us, as sales figures are what it's all about. The GS was never picked up in anywhere like the same numbers of the target audience....executive company car fleets, because 1) it was sold at too high a cost compared with the economies of scale of BMW/Audi/Mercedes to compete and because 2) it appealed only to those buying (rather than leasing or as a company vehicle) to the over 40's due to initial purchase price and insurance. 

Take those main contributing factors to low sales away and compare the car like for like and it many ways it betters the competition, in reliability, comfort, finish and refinement.

Performance figure comparisons belong on paper.  The driving experience is what it's all about and sadly, part of that was lost when the switch to hybrids came along due to the weight penalty it brought with it and most certainly to the switch to fwd.  Lexus do a good job (except I'd argue with the CT which is has imho appalling ride quality) and have made cars like the GS and even the RX hide their mass well.

People in the market for the GS I don't think will want the LS.  It's that much larger and costlier to buy and run, new or used, plus costs more to insure, and in the case of the hybrid, has a pathetic boot size for such a large car.

The irony of all of this is that the best selling Lexus in the UK also remains the worst Lexus in the UK (the CT) which is beaten in just about every area except internal finish by its competitors and especially on ride comfort, which goes to prove that none of these decisions are made on what a great car the GS was.  It was, and remains a great car.  So where does that leave the customers who hanker after a 3.5 V6?  Well, Lexus are mistaken if they think for a second that people are likely to stick with them and accept a 300h or the underpowered and rather rough running lump that the 250 is.  I wouldn't.  Those customers will be lost to Lexus but that doesn't really matter to them because they only amounted to 350-odd annually anyway compared with 21,000 for the RX, or even more with the CT.  Hard facts, because running a successful business is about profit and reinvestment.

Are electric-only cars really viable presently?  No.  You might like them an want to argue the opposite, but once you look into what viability entails, none of the arguments I've so far heard bear up to close scrutiny.  Not if you do loads of miles and not based on purchase costs and most definitely NOT on carbon footprint.  You have to look at the efficiency of getting electric from burning gas (where a majority of our electricity generation still comes from) in terms of the generation process, the distribution (and distribution losses) and charging losses (battery efficiency) and motive efficiency (motors and transmission).  Petrol likely still remains more efficient and we will not have national capacity for a switch to electric any time soon, by all official estimates, not for well over a decade or two.  So should you feel bad about running a 3 litre V6 until such time as things change?  No, of course not.  From every aspect including durability/ longevity and whole life carbon footprint it remains  a valid choice.  Sadly though, the powers that be disagree and will tax the behind off you should you ignore them and decide to buy one.  Think about how that affects sales too. The reasons for people buying into electric-only are more due to the worries about particulates (valid and understandable), Nox (ditto), about government subsidies and about tax breaks making them suitable for urbanites and semi-urbanites who do relatively low annual mileages where cost of ownership may be lower over any given annual period.

Not all of us want an electric only car (I certainly don't, at least not yet) and I'll be honest and say I only went hybrid because the car I wanted was still offered as a V6, and over the years, I have loved every 6 cylinder motor I've owned from my 1970's Triumph 2000TC through to recent cars like the BMW and Lexus models owned and because I wanted the extra grunt.  We also have a butterfly-friendly Honda i-vtec and it wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding unless revved until the valves cry out for mercy.  It was a decision of the head.  A V6 is a decision of the heart as much as the head.

Simply brilliant post - thank you! Reading your post make me love my car even more...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

Are electric-only cars really viable presently?  No.  You might like them an want to argue the opposite, but once you look into what viability entails, none of the arguments I've so far heard bear up to close scrutiny.  Not if you do loads of miles and not based on purchase costs and most definitely NOT on carbon footprint.  You have to look at the efficiency of getting electric from burning gas (where a majority of our electricity generation still comes from) in terms of the generation process, the distribution (and distribution losses) and charging losses (battery efficiency) and motive efficiency (motors and transmission). 

I agree that the entire picture needs looking at. 

However, it makes an unfair comparison because when talking about petrol vehicles and we talk of g/km and mpg then we're talking about from the petrol in the tank - you're not counting the 11% energy overhead in refining (ie for every 9 litres in your tank, the energy equivalent of another litre was burned at the refinery in process heat), the energy used to transport crude from the well to the refinery, the energy used to transport the petrol from the refinery to the petrol station, the energy consumed by the petrol station for lighting, pumps, etc. 

The majority of UK electricity does NOT come from gas. Gas is the largest contributor at present, but at 41% over the past year it is NOT the majority. 

5 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

 Petrol likely still remains more efficient

Petrol engines are at best 41% efficient (http://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine) and only under VERY specific circumstances of load and rpm. That efficiency is also from fuel to crankshaft, and more is lost in the transmission and powering of ancilliary devices - at best 35% reaches the wheels. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars

That comparison compares to generating electricity from oil, which is one of the worst way to generate it from a CO2 perspective - over 1000g/kWh. 2018 UK average was 218g/kWh. Current real-world average for EVs is from 20-50g/km in the UK, whereas ICE are anywhere from 100 (real world, not EU fantasyland figures) to 300+. Compare like with like, in other words compare an EV at the high end of that scale (Eg Tesla model X P100DL is around 45-50g/km) to a vehicle of comparable configuration and performance (lamborghini urus, 325g/km) and it's not even close. 

5 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

and we will not have national capacity for a switch to electric any time soon, by all official estimates, not for well over a decade or two.  So should you feel bad about running a 3 litre V6 until such time as things change?  No, of course not.  From every aspect including durability/ longevity and whole life carbon footprint it remains  a valid choice. 

Please show these "all official estimates"? 

https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner-predicted-no-sweat-says-national-grid/

https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric-dreams-future-evs

As you can see, national grid see a requirement for 35-40TWh of additional power to support EVs. 

http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/historicaldata/

We've cut annual electricity consumption in the UK by 46TWh since 2012 - and that trend is continuing. 

In other words, we've already CUT electricity consumption in the past 6 years by MORE than is needed to support EVs by 2040. 

5 hours ago, GSLV6 said:

  Sadly though, the powers that be disagree and will tax the behind off you should you ignore them and decide to buy one.  Think about how that affects sales too. The reasons for people buying into electric-only are more due to the worries about particulates (valid and understandable), Nox (ditto), about government subsidies and about tax breaks making them suitable for urbanites and semi-urbanites who do relatively low annual mileages where cost of ownership may be lower over any given annual period.

On this we are in complete agreement - ever since the CO2 based tax was introduced it has been a complete and utter shambles. 

There is one VERY simple way to handle the tax situation - one that is completely fair in that it DIRECTLY taxes heavy emissions users and goes lightly on low mileage drivers, one that doesn't have loopholes (like people paying  only 6% BIK tax on a PHEV that they never plug in and don't care that they get 20mpg as a result) and one that would have extremely low bureaucratic overheads - simply add the tax on the fuel. 

Political suicide, but the only fair and valid way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, doog442 said:

 

Spot on. BMW alone sell thousands of six pot petrol engine vehicles in the UK. I'd wager sales of 3 litre petrol engines aren't far off total Lexus sales in this country.

There is a market out there. Why Lexus are ignoring this sector or just pretending it doesn't exist any more is a mystery but has been debated on here for years (with frustration for some) 

The fact Toyota lumped a BMW B58 straight six and gearbox into the new Supra is all telling . 

 

I guess they dont see a businesscase in bringing a 6 into the UK ?  Costs too high and no return on investment as not enough cars sold? They forecast 85% of the ES will be a 6 so in the states alone that will be some 50.000 cars p.a.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a fundamental point I'm fairly certain someone has previously mentioned.  In the UK we are badge snobs.  The target market for the GS class, especially the bigger engine option are the ones who will always go for the BMW 5 series, Mercedes E class, or at a push Audi A6.  My previous car, a Citroen C6, suffered from the same problem, except from the start Citroen openly admitted they knew they would sell only very few in this country and so did not bother wasting money on marketting and advertising.  With this class, the small engine options, with the highest economy option, tend to be a choice for those retiring or close to retiring who want to treat themselves to the car they never previously could afford/justify.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

I guess they dont see a businesscase in bringing a 6 into the UK ?  Costs too high and no return on investment as not enough cars sold? They forecast 85% of the ES will be a 6 so in the states alone that will be some 50.000 cars p.a.!

But... it is cheaper to make 350 and worldwide they make far far more 350s then 300h's, based on economies of scale 350s would actually have higher profit margin or would be total steal with the same profit margin... underselling BMW and a a likes  maybe by 25%

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have monitored this thread for a good few months and it still makes very interesting reading from all the contributors.

I do like the ES very much and it would make a decent replacement for my GS250 whenever it is time to change. What I am not happy about is the single engine choice that is available 

The forecast of selling 900 units a year is disappointing, and it may even struggle to reach that if there is one sole powerplant. I have driven it and it is not for me despite the assurances that it is much better than previous generations. However I respect those who decided to buy hybrid models. When the GS was launched there was the 2.5l V6 and the 450h available. Then after 2 years, the former was replaced by the GS300h and an £8000 price hike.

The ES350 VS Es300h debate rages on but there is also another ES -

The ES250 which is basically the same 2.5L NA engine in the the ES300h but without any of the hybrid components in it.

Four countries at least as far as I know have this choice )as well as the 300h and they are China (badged ES260 as 250 is slang for something bad apparently), Malaysia, South Africa and Singapore.

Using the latter nation as an example as they are right hand drive,  the price difference between the 2.5L and hybrid is 10000 SGD which is just under £6000,

0-60 (irrelevant) 9.1s, Power - 203bhp,

Top speed of 130 mph ( to me that isn't important),

Torque of 182 lb/ft, 8 speed automatic

Average mpg of 42.8mpg which puts it on similar road fund tariff as a hybrid - the difference is £10 a year

Read world economy differences wouldn't bother me either, Chances are the petrol one will do mid- high thirties and the hybrid -high 40s. Only 10-15mpg difference! 

Mazda 6 have a 2.5 litre NA 4 cylinder engine available in their range and even taking their diesel options off the menu, they still have 3 different petrol engines. Okay its cheeky to compate a Lexus to a Mazda. Compare it to Toyota, the engine choices are also crap sorry to say.

With my circumstances, with such differences highlighted above especially the price, I would buy this in a heartbeat.. An ES250 with premium pack and met paint for £33-34k would be superb but is this going to happen? 

Okay, the ES350 that the Russians get would be so nice but the efficiency obsessed of the UK, with downsizing, forced induction and what not, would get it blackballed almost instantly. 

I welcome your thoughts on this great forum. 

Take care.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, i-s said:

I agree that the entire picture needs looking at. 

However, it makes an unfair comparison because when talking about petrol vehicles and we talk of g/km and mpg then we're talking about from the petrol in the tank - you're not counting the 11% energy overhead in refining (ie for every 9 litres in your tank, the energy equivalent of another litre was burned at the refinery in process heat), the energy used to transport crude from the well to the refinery, the energy used to transport the petrol from the refinery to the petrol station, the energy consumed by the petrol station for lighting, pumps, etc. 

The majority of UK electricity does NOT come from gas. Gas is the largest contributor at present, but at 41% over the past year it is NOT the majority. 

Petrol engines are at best 41% efficient (http://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/toyota-develops-worlds-most-thermally-efficient-2-0-liter-engine) and only under VERY specific circumstances of load and rpm. That efficiency is also from fuel to crankshaft, and more is lost in the transmission and powering of ancilliary devices - at best 35% reaches the wheels. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars

That comparison compares to generating electricity from oil, which is one of the worst way to generate it from a CO2 perspective - over 1000g/kWh. 2018 UK average was 218g/kWh. Current real-world average for EVs is from 20-50g/km in the UK, whereas ICE are anywhere from 100 (real world, not EU fantasyland figures) to 300+. Compare like with like, in other words compare an EV at the high end of that scale (Eg Tesla model X P100DL is around 45-50g/km) to a vehicle of comparable configuration and performance (lamborghini urus, 325g/km) and it's not even close. 

Please show these "all official estimates"? 

https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner-predicted-no-sweat-says-national-grid/

https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric-dreams-future-evs

As you can see, national grid see a requirement for 35-40TWh of additional power to support EVs. 

http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/historicaldata/

We've cut annual electricity consumption in the UK by 46TWh since 2012 - and that trend is continuing. 

In other words, we've already CUT electricity consumption in the past 6 years by MORE than is needed to support EVs by 2040. 

On this we are in complete agreement - ever since the CO2 based tax was introduced it has been a complete and utter shambles. 

There is one VERY simple way to handle the tax situation - one that is completely fair in that it DIRECTLY taxes heavy emissions users and goes lightly on low mileage drivers, one that doesn't have loopholes (like people paying  only 6% BIK tax on a PHEV that they never plug in and don't care that they get 20mpg as a result) and one that would have extremely low bureaucratic overheads - simply add the tax on the fuel. 

Political suicide, but the only fair and valid way. 

I think that there's some crossed wires here and indeed some rather unfair comparisons being made.

Lets start with electricity production by type for 2016 (Source:  Wikipedia):

 

In 2016, total electricity production stood at 357 TWh (down from a peak of 385 TWh in 2005), generated from the following sources:[50][51]

 
  • Gas: 40.2% (0.05% in 1990)
  • Nuclear: 20.1% (19% in 1990)
  • Wind: 10.6% (0% in 1990), of which:
  • Onshore Wind: 5.7%
  • Offshore Wind: 4.9%
  • Coal: 8.6% (67% in 1990)
  • Bio-Energy: 8.4% (0% in 1990)
  • Solar: 2.8% (0% in 1990)
  • Hydroelectric: 1.5% (2.6% in 1990)
  • Oil and other: 7.8% (12% in 1990

The figures above clearly show that the major single contributor to production was Gas at 40.2%, some 20% above the next largest producer of Nuclear energy.

It is not clear whether these figures included for the spinning reserve needed to back up high diurnal demands and periods of low or non production by renewable sources during high demand periods.

The National Grid have themselves informed Government that unless there is tangible movement on letting contracts (ie planned increased production strategy with contracts needing to be fleshed out now, not in a decade's time as it'll likely take that long for the procurement and delivery processes to hit the ground) then we will require a rise in capacity of between 3.5 and 8 GW to meet the increased demands imposed by the forecast switch to EVs on our streets and that atop current peak demand of 60GW.  They cited an example of what that means in reality and it compares with a little over 3GW capacity added by the current Hinkley Nuclear power station project.  They also cite forecasts by 2050 of a need for an additional 18GW capacity based on all vehicles switching across to electric and those figures do NOT include any increased domestic or industrial demands.

Forgive me, but where amongst that lot does it suggest that we have adequate capacity when the National Grid themselves say that we haven't?

It will take a huge net increase in renewables or several more Nuclear power stations coming on line and thought must also be paid to those stations yet to be decommissioned or upgraded.

Your comparisons on energy use for the electric cars neglect production costs (environmentally) and recycling and disposal costs.  Just about every part of a current combustion engined car can be currently recycled in some way but I understand that the same is not true of the Li-Ion batteries.   What I mean is that at least here in the UK there are no recycling facilities for Li batteries, they have to be shipped abroad.  Add to that some of the inflated and down right dishonest claims on reliability and range by companies like Tesla, and their cars are far from an attractive proposition let alone affordable (entry level models being in the mid £60K region). Even cheaper all electric EV cars cannot compete on range or purchase price with equivalent petrol cars.  Whilst that doesn't affect the choices made by some, it certainly does by most people.

I was hoping to be persuaded otherwise but nothing has changed from my perspective, and the figures quoted above are all from official sources, so hopefully that has answered your queries?  You have really to point out the comparative efficiencies of EVs on a whole life basis, for a comparative mileage, the life expectancy itself and the related carbon footprint.  Those are the only true measures and not what things cost the consumers or what comparative motive efficiencies are at a certain point  We need to walk into these decisions with open eyes about what we're doing, in terms of to the planet as much as to our wallets!

For the moment, for many of us at least, the 6-pot petrol engine rules!  Couldn't care less about the boasting of Tesla and others about performance.  It's immaterial on our roads except (at least imho) for safe overtakes and load lugging.  Once you're up to a certain performance point (lets say any car that is capable of a 30-70 within 4 or 5 seconds has adequate performance, any less than 4 seconds and its pretty quick) then comparisons are for racetracks and for those who like to wave their little things about in the faces of others.  If what you want is a fast car because it's fun, go for it.  I've done just that in the past.  Now I care less about top trumps but want safe reserves of power.

Debate is healthy though as it helps shape our understanding and also where others might be coming from, and respect to that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have monitored this thread for a good few months and it still makes very interesting reading from all the contributors.
I do like the ES very much and it would make a decent replacement for my GS250 whenever it is time to change. What I am not happy about is the single engine choice that is available 
The forecast of selling 900 units a year is disappointing, and it may even struggle to reach that if there is one sole powerplant. I have driven it and it is not for me despite the assurances that it is much better than previous generations. However I respect those who decided to buy hybrid models. When the GS was launched there was the 2.5l V6 and the 450h available. Then after 2 years, the former was replaced by the GS300h and an £8000 price hike.
The ES350 VS Es300h debate rages on but there is also another ES -
The ES250 which is basically the same 2.5L NA engine in the the ES300h but without any of the hybrid components in it.
Four countries at least as far as I know have this choice )as well as the 300h and they are China (badged ES260 as 250 is slang for something bad apparently), Malaysia, South Africa and Singapore.
Using the latter nation as an example as they are right hand drive,  the price difference between the 2.5L and hybrid is 10000 SGD which is just under £6000,
0-60 (irrelevant) 9.1s, Power - 203bhp,
Top speed of 130 mph ( to me that isn't important),
Torque of 182 lb/ft, 8 speed automatic
Average mpg of 42.8mpg which puts it on similar road fund tariff as a hybrid - the difference is £10 a year
Read world economy differences wouldn't bother me either, Chances are the petrol one will do mid- high thirties and the hybrid -high 40s. Only 10-15mpg difference! 
Mazda 6 have a 2.5 litre NA 4 cylinder engine available in their range and even taking their diesel options off the menu, they still have 3 different petrol engines. Okay its cheeky to compate a Lexus to a Mazda. Compare it to Toyota, the engine choices are also crap sorry to say.
With my circumstances, with such differences highlighted above especially the price, I would buy this in a heartbeat.. An ES250 with premium pack and met paint for £33-34k would be superb but is this going to happen? 
Okay, the ES350 that the Russians get would be so nice but the efficiency obsessed of the UK, with downsizing, forced induction and what not, would get it blackballed almost instantly. 
I welcome your thoughts on this great forum. 
Take care.
 
 
 
 


An ES250 or even an ES200t would be great imho


Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not been on this forum that long but gotta love the nature of a lot of the postings here. Lots of pontificating about maximum speeds, driving styles etc. Compare this to the German car forums which are inevitably concentrating on failed sensors, oil peeing out over the drive, engines chomping up parts of the induction system, wiring looms failing, breakdowns on the motorway, lumpy idling, engine lights coming on etc etc etc. 

Guess when your car (touching wood) is very reliable you need to find things to talk about!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not been on this forum that long but gotta love the nature of a lot of the postings here. Lots of pontificating about maximum speeds, driving styles etc. Compare this to the German car forums which are inevitably concentrating on failed sensors, oil peeing out over the drive, engines chomping up parts of the induction system, wiring looms failing, breakdowns on the motorway, lumpy idling, engine lights coming on etc etc etc. 
Guess when your car (touching wood) is very reliable you need to find things to talk about!


Indeed - it’s an odd forum as discontent about the cars ability to function is mute but plenty do wish they were faster.

I love the idea of the hybrids but I’d really rather have a nice big petrol in there - especially if it costs less and goes harder/faster.


Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the irony. The car that seemed pretty much ignored by everybody with under 300 cars sold in the UK last year is stirring up lots of emotions and splitting opinions. 35 pages and counting, average 25 messages per page so almost 900 expressions of members like me that feel they have to contribute in one way or the other.

It all seems to boil down to the end of an era. from V6 to Hybrid 4. From RWD to FWD,

From a designated  5 series beater designed by engineers, that propably was never understood, to an upmarket version of the Avalon designed by the marketing department. 

The writing is on the wall, The Death Of The Sedan. This segment is shrinking rapidly so large investments will flow into other models ( SUV/Crossovers) that sell like hot cakes regardless of price.  LF1 - RXL - RX - NX - UX and the US dealers now asking for a halo SUV model above the LF1 to compete with the prime example of bad taste the escalade. 

How will the Lexus portfolio look in 5 years time? Better get your hands on a second hand GS 6 or 8 pot before they are gone!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

It all seems to boil down to the end of an era. from V6 to Hybrid 4. From RWD to FWD

Agree with Saloons market shrinking... bloody SUVs like a cancer...

However, when you say "end of era", it is not like L4 are superiour to V6, or FWD to RWD... or more modern or more advanced. They are just cheaper versions of the same, being sold for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with Saloons market shrinking... bloody SUVs like a cancer...
However, when you say "end of era", it is not like L4 are superiour to V6, or FWD to RWD... or more modern or more advanced. They are just cheaper versions of the same, being sold for more.


The desire to keep Co2 emissions down is at total odds with SUVs which by virtue of their height and aerodynamics are less fuel efficient than a conventional car.

If you look at the UX it’s almost car like compared to say the RX. SUVs will morph into ever so slight raised hatches which will at least roll less than present day equivalents


Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.