First ever test drive - RC300h F-Sport - Not Impressed

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, serbarry said:

I would like to defend Linas here as I think his judgement on the car should not be seen as an offence by the owners. I understand that someone may not like that the car he loves is "destroyed" by Linas and Lucas but the purpose of the forum (and maybe the richness of it) is to have different views and opinions which may contribute to inform the readers. I have never driven a RC300H even though I have always admired it as a stunning coupe. I am pretty sure it would satisfy my taste and it would be an excellent driving experience. But this is probably because I have driven a Prius for 12 years and in all these years the Prius was just good for me: roomy, comfortable with an unbeatable fuel economy, with a huge boot which proved very useful and practical in many occasions. Even though I have had colleagues and friends who told me that my Prius was a sh..y car: slow, boring, without any excitement in driving it, etc. I never got offended: it was their opinions and I never cared. They were driving diesel cars which for me were prehistory compared to the technology of my Prius. Now that I drive a GS450H I understand why the Prius was boring and slow but still my driving is mostly in the city with low speed limits where the Prius was just fine and where now I can't get the best of my GS which I love anyway (but as for the fuel consumption I still miss the Prius). Even if Linas and Lucas are drastic in their judgement on the RC300H, for some owners it will still be the best car they own, but probably Linas and Lucas have different priorities and expectations from the RC300H than the owners and personally I welcome different opinions and views in this forum, otherwise it would be kind of boring flattering opinions on how our Lexus are fabulous.  

Absolutely agree with your general message, if everyone were the same it would be a boring world and you don’t have to like every Lexus model simply because it’s a Lexus.

maybe the issue is when a poster who has never owned a certain model starts lecturing actual owners of said model about what mpg, performance etc they will definitely be experiencing and simply just digs their heels in and keeps repeating there own made up facts in ever longer posts and refusing to listen to actual owners views

[serbarry]

3 minutes ago, Derant said:

Absolutely agree with your general message, if everyone were the same it would be a boring world and you don’t have to like every Lexus model simply because it’s a Lexus.

maybe the issue is when a poster who has never owned a certain model starts lecturing actual owners of said model about what mpg, performance etc they will definitely be experiencing and simply just digs their heels in and keeps repeating there own made up facts in ever longer posts and refusing to listen to actual owners views

I still think that you don't need to own a car to be able to judge it: Linas said he has driven the RC300H for a day maybe? I think a couple of hours of driving experience may give you an idea of how the car drives. My friends drove my Prius for short distances and objectively the Prius is slow and probably does not give any excitement, but for me it was fine. There are plenty of cars testers who do not own the cars they test and give reviews. 

[Linas.P]

I think you are confused what "opinion" and personal experience is. 

When I say that I get 38MPG with my driving, that is what I get, that is fact. When you get 55MPG that is equally fact... we just do different driving. And when I come and say that in my experience based on the driving I do I would expect this car to get 38MPG - that does not mean you wrong or that I dig my heels or refusing to listen to other views. It just means exactly that "if you drive like me you will get 38 MPG", if you drive like Anthony you may get 55MPG.

If you value things about the car I do, you will find car sluggish and underwhelming, but if you value things Anthony values, it may be fast enough. Those are two opinions and for somebody trying to choose what they like, the argumentation is important. Somebody may come and thing "I don't care how car handles, I want reliable, well built car with good economy, what Anthony is saying resonates with my needs and that is right car for me", or they may come and think "I want car which drivers well, I don't want only looks, I actually want sporty car and it seems Linas is right, this car is all about the looks and no performance". That is the purpose of the forum, that is what makes it useful.

And whenever you own the car that is irrelevant, seriously forget about it. As Sergio said - most reviewers don't actually own the cars they review. I do agree that if somebody sat in the car in the showroom and claims to know everything about it, that opinion is not very credible, but it is still opinion thought. And there is no right or wrong amount of time one has to spend in car to form opinion about it, but equally saying that your opinion is right because you paid money for it and mine is wrong even after thousands of miles, just makes no sense. If anything - you owning the car makes you opinion more biased and less independent. That is not to say your opinion is automatically wrong, just that one doesn't have to own the car to have opinion about it.

That is why my advise is always to test drive the car and make your own decision. I never said - "you will not like it, because I didn't". I just say - "I didn't like it because of reason, but try it yourself and see how it suits you". Especially on the cars which are a bit controversial like 300h and perhaps described by Lexus little bit disingenuously. 

[H3XME]

42 minutes ago, Derant said:

maybe the issue is when a poster who has never owned a certain model starts lecturing actual owners of said model about what mpg, performance etc they will definitely be experiencing and simply just digs their heels in and keeps repeating there own made up facts in ever longer posts and refusing to listen to actual owners views

I was only describing my limited experience with that car as I said before. What I was stating were facts & opinions. I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm simply a sharing my opinion with others. First impressions matter, and if you get something you need to get used to because you're a bit "meh" about it at first, it's not right imo. Especially when you're spending tens of thousands of pounds on it.

I said multiple times now, the RC300h does not suit me. It's not what I expected, and it's not something people like me will enjoy, hence why I described my experience and reasoned my view. You don't need to spend hours or days with a car to figure out that it's slow & unresponsive. Sure, MPGs is a different story, that's dependant on many factors, but like I said, in the same short drive, my V6 would achieve the same numbers. I'm not saying that people who bought RC300h made the wrong choice, I'm only saying that if I purchased RC300h, I would make a wrong choice because it's not for me, and me only. 

If you see a review of something, and someone says "it's sh*t, it's not for me" you will wonder why. I'm simply saying why in all these paragraphs 😉 and if you don't share any of my values & views, then you will go ahead, but if you do, you will not be getting a hybrid version of this particular car. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, H3XME said:

I was only describing my limited experience with that car as I said before. What I was stating were facts & opinions. I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm simply a sharing my opinion with others. First impressions matter, and if you get something you need to get used to because you're a bit "meh" about it at first, it's not right imo. Especially when you're spending tens of thousands of pounds on it.

I said multiple times now, the RC300h does not suit me. It's not what I expected, and it's not something people like me will enjoy, hence why I described my experience and reasoned my view. You don't need to spend hours or days with a car to figure out that it's slow & unresponsive. Sure, MPGs is a different story, that's dependant on many factors, but like I said, in the same short drive, my V6 would achieve the same numbers. I'm not saying that people who bought RC300h made the wrong choice, I'm only saying that if I purchased RC300h, I would make a wrong choice because it's not for me, and me only. 

If you see a review of something, and someone says "it's sh*t, it's not for me" you will wonder why. I'm simply saying why in all these paragraphs 😉 and if you don't share any of my values & views, then you will go ahead, but if you do, you will not be getting a hybrid version of this particular car. 

I thought your review of your test drive was completely fair and informative, just not the car for you, no problem whatsoever with that

[doog442]

2 hours ago, Derant said:

I thought your review of your test drive was completely fair and informative, just not the car for you, no problem whatsoever with that

The only thing I find odd is starting a thread on an RC forum slating the thing. It will always end in tears and to me is a little ill judged especially when the haters join in .

I had a test drive in an RC 300h, came to the conclusion that it wasn't my cup of tea and simply moved on.  I may have offered up my thoughts in a thread or two later but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to slag it off on a forum of RC owners who are quite rightly aware of its limitations and also its strengths.  

 

[H3XME]

2 minutes ago, doog442 said:

The only thing I find odd is starting a thread on an RC forum slating the thing. It will always end in tears and to me is a little ill judged especially when the haters join in .

I had a test drive in an RC 300h, came to the conclusion that it wasn't my cup of tea and simply moved on.  I may have offered up my thoughts in a thread or two later but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to slag it off on a forum of RC owners who are quite rightly aware of its limitations and also its strengths.  

 

I didn't slag it off completely though did I.. I like the car itself. I hate the drivetrain in it. It's an RC forum, not specifically RCh forum.. 

If anything, I wasn't typing out my thoughts to the owners, that's pointless, like you said, they know. It's more so for people like me who are toying with the idea of getting one. I hate to go on a forum of a car I'm interested in and all I find is super biased bollocks that is no good. I think I stayed objective enough. It's a great car, just not in the hybrid version for what I want to do with the car. I said before, I had an IS300h for a couple of days and I can't fault it as it is, but I have no sporty expectations from a car like that.. The RC on the other hand...

[PRT68]

So, if you did your research properly, you would see that both have the same powertrain!

And so performance is very much the same ,with the same delivery!

Anyway, I'm out.

[H3XME]

5 minutes ago, PRT68 said:

So, if you did your research properly, you would see that both have the same powertrain!

And so performance is very much the same ,with the same delivery!

Anyway, I'm out.

So? Often manufacturers use the same drivetrain in multiple cars with slight tweaks to suit the chassis or the nature of the car it's in. Not here. I was optimistic about driving it. I figured after driving the ISh that they just made it a bit dull on purpose because it's a lux saloon. I'd never look at it and think "hmm, this better drive like a sports car" and my mistake was looking at the RCh that way and it's easily done, just look at it.. It looks great, but it's all show and no go in this version. 

[serbarry]

10 minutes ago, PRT68 said:

So, if you did your research properly, you would see that both have the same powertrain!

And so performance is very much the same ,with the same delivery!

Anyway, I'm out.

The difference is that he was not planning to buy the IS300H as it was ok as courtesy car but not owning. Instead he had some expectations on the RC300H with the purpose of buying it given the superb look of the car, but he was disappointed from the performance. 

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, serbarry said:

The difference is that he was not planning to buy the IS300H as it was ok as courtesy car but not owning. Instead he had some expectations on the RC300H with the purpose of buying it given the superb look of the car, but he was disappointed from the performance. 

And indeed that was clearly expressed multiple times, so not sure why anyone would be confused. 

[Alan305]

For sure there is a market. Looks like the RC F but drives like the IS300h. Why not have much less power for those who don’t want V8 costs or performance, just not for everyone.

I like my NX, and did our GS and IS. Would I like a bit more torque and a bit less engine noise when 4 up on a steep hill, yes. Quality, servicing and reliability easily keeps me with brand at 70 plus. When I was younger and needed to cruise nicely I liked my LS400 and LS430. Nothing else came near.

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Alan305 said:

For sure there is a market. Looks like the RC F but drives like the IS300h. Why not have much less power for those who don’t want V8 costs or performance, just not for everyone.

Absolutely, and that is why 300h exists, problem is that there is nothing else between 300h and RC-F. And that is not normal. It is like BMW offering 420d and M4, no 425, no 430, no 435, no 440... Well technically there was RC200t which is ~420-428i, but for sure nothing in a range above that.

[H3XME]

55 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Absolutely, and that is why 300h exists, problem is that there is nothing else between 300h and RC-F. And that is not normal. It is like BMW offering 420d and M4, no 425, no 430, no 435, no 440... Well technically there was RC200t which is ~420-428i, but for sure nothing in a range above that.

I just had a look and did some numbers just out of curiosity.. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RC200t  F-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder turbo engine producing 242hp & 258ft/lbs - 0-60 in 7.5s - Power-to-weight ratio is 146hp/t

428i M-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder turbo engine producing 242hp & 258ft/lbs - 0-60 in 5.8s - Power-to-weight ratio is 164hp/t

RC300h F-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder hybrid producing combined 220hp & 163ft/lbs - 0-60 in 8.6s - Power-to-weight ratio is 126hp/t

420i M-Sport Auto -  4 cylinder turbo engine producing 181hp & 217ft/lbs - 0-60 in 7.3s - Power-to-weight ratio is 122hp/t

Despite RC300h having better power-to-weight ratio than 420i, it's noticeably slower with a completely different power delivery, so if numbers like this are a deciding factor to anyone whether to go for X or Y, don't bother. Drive it. Numbers are numbers and feelings are feelings.

Not to mention, manufacturers like to tell porkies when it comes to power figures. The new Supra is rated to 335hp, yet dyno proves its closer to 375hp. GT86 is rated to 200hp, yet dyno proves 185hp.. It can go either way. Depends on the engine I guess.

[Linas.P]

I think it goes back to what you said before - it is optimised for fuel economy, not for speed. And that is why both RC200t and RC300h are way slower than one would expect just based on power they make or even power-to-weight ratio. And this is why I would say RC200t is even worse than RC300h, at least RC300h makes sense because it is economical, but RC200t is neither economical nor fast. Why make turbo charged car focused on economy which it just can't achieve? 

[H3XME]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I think it goes back to what you said before - it is optimised for fuel economy, not for speed. And that is why both RC200t and RC300h are way slower than one would expect just based on power they make or even power-to-weight ratio. And this is why I would say RC200t is even worse than RC300h, at least RC300h makes sense because it is economical, but RC200t is neither economical nor fast. Why make turbo charged car focused on economy which it just can't achieve? 

Yeah it's weird. Lexus tried.. I suppose 200t engine is a similar scenario to 220/200d before. They tried, didn't really work. Obviously for different reasons, but came to the same conclusion nevertheless. 

[Linas.P]

Just now, H3XME said:

Yeah it's weird. Lexus tried.. I suppose 200t engine is a similar scenario to 220/200d before. They tried, didn't really work. Obviously for different reasons, but came to the same conclusion nevertheless. 

It sold well in other regions, where fuel efficiency is not a concern. I am still surprised Lexus tested their cars and realised it does like 20-28MPG and said "yep that seems right, let's get it sold in UK, where gallon of fuel costs £8.72". Or even from development perspective, how does it even make sense? So they have production line rolling since 2003 making 2GR-FSE, engine which is proven to be reliable, fuel efficient and decently powerful (nearly 100hp/L), once production line is set-up it really only costs them as much as the raw materials and electricity to make it... and instead of putting it into the car and calling it a day, they decided to spend $100 million, make engine with less power, which uses more fuel and at no point they realised "wait a second, this is inferior to the engine we already making which costs us nothing to make"... like how?

And I understand that RC200t sold in countries where fuel cost is not a concern, simply because it was cheap, but not other reason.

I guess in UK the problem was stupid government CO2 rules. Because when it comes to road tax RC350 would have been in the same bracket as RC-F and they just thought it would be hard sell perhaps. Although I would take RC350 any day over RC200t, even if I would have to pay £585 road tax instead of £240, at least I would know what I am paying this tax for. 

[wharfhouse]

26 minutes ago, H3XME said:

I just had a look and did some numbers just out of curiosity.. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RC200t  F-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder turbo engine producing 242hp & 258ft/lbs - 0-60 in 7.5s - Power-to-weight ratio is 146hp/t

428i M-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder turbo engine producing 242hp & 258ft/lbs - 0-60 in 5.8s - Power-to-weight ratio is 164hp/t

RC300h F-Sport Auto - 4 cylinder hybrid producing combined 220hp & 163ft/lbs - 0-60 in 8.6s - Power-to-weight ratio is 126hp/t

420i M-Sport Auto -  4 cylinder turbo engine producing 181hp & 217ft/lbs - 0-60 in 7.3s - Power-to-weight ratio is 122hp/t

Despite RC300h having better power-to-weight ratio than 420i, it's noticeably slower with a completely different power delivery, so if numbers like this are a deciding factor to anyone whether to go for X or Y, don't bother. Drive it. Numbers are numbers and feelings are feelings.

Not to mention, manufacturers like to tell porkies when it comes to power figures. The new Supra is rated to 335hp, yet dyno proves its closer to 375hp. GT86 is rated to 200hp, yet dyno proves 185hp.. It can go either way. Depends on the engine I guess.

The issue with the 300h drive train is that the 0-60 numbers don't tell the whole story as they are established in "ideal" conditions and rarely achievable by the average driver in real conditions. It is more about the way the 300h drive train (or 450h for that matter) delivers the power. It is different to all of the other examples above. There are of course no gears, when pressed into action fully the engine will spin to peak torque very quickly with no relationship to road speed etc. and the assistance from the battery/electric motor will kick in controlled by the computers. This combination can make for surprisingly rapid progress - I have had the odd "dash" against with other cars starting at various different speeds including a standstill in my IS 300h and when everything is unleashed it is quite surprising what the car can achieve. Of course, I accept the other car may not be using what they have on hand the most efficiently but that is where it comes back to the experience in the real world rather than in a controlled situation.

If one selects a car by the 0-60 on paper numbers, yes the 300h will likely be at the bottom of that list. And if one wants that feeling of rising and falling revs and to feel the buzz of the gears swapping, again the 300h will likely be at the bottom of that list. To some extent, if one wants to be on the adhesion limit and have a fine control through the throttle of the power delivery then again the 300h drive train is likely not the best. But for every day and real world long distance driving it is (IMHO - and I have had plenty of other cars) one that gets the job done and the journey executed in a calm and relaxed manner, getting to the destination not measurably slower than something with a more frantic drive train experience.

I have no issue with the 300h drive train not being to everyone's taste. That is fine. We all have our own requirements and spend our money on what gives us our own individual pleasure. The world is full of many fine cars that each tick their own boxes and that is a good thing. I would always say to anyone to test drive a car over a sensible distance / time as per their average driving needs and make a decision based on that.

Yes, Lexus Europe/UK could have offered a broader range of engine choices, but for whatever reason unknown to us they didn't so we can only choose from what is there if it is a Lexus we want. I was gutted that they decided not to bring the latest IS to UK/Europe as I had planned to change my car for a new one. The ES doesn't "do it" for me nor do SUVs. So I'm now having to assess whether to stay with the Lexus brand (which has many fine qualities) or change to another brand. But I will keep an open mind and look at what is out in the market and long may companies innovate and bring new and fresh designs for us all to choose from.

[Caspa]

2 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

I was gutted that they decided not to bring the latest IS to UK/Europe

Yeah, think many of us were... 

[Linas.P]

Yeah... I think many would choose IS mk4 instead of ES, although in 300h guise there isn't much benefit having RWD. All really depends on price.

[wharfhouse]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yeah... I think many would choose IS mk4 instead of ES, although in 300h guise there isn't much benefit having RWD. All really depends on price.

For me it's partly the RWD that I find more balanced though I've had FWD in other cars in the past, but more the overall package size of the IS in a saloon format I really like.

[Linas.P]

16 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

For me it's partly the RWD that I find more balanced though I've had FWD in other cars in the past, but more the overall package size of the IS in a saloon format I really like.

Yeah I generally like how IS mk4 looks more than ES, despite it being maybe slightly less practical, less space in the back etc. In other hand I think ES has more up-to date tech, so the price point would be important. In US, the IS sell noticeable cheaper so it is ok... It is actually had to say, because in my experience IS is just better built car and feel more premium than ES, which really feels like fancy Toyota and in IS mk4 obviously one get's latest LSS+ with widescreen, so the difference can't be that big between it and ES. So I think there would be compromises on both models, one is more premium with older tech, and the other one is little bit better tech, larger, but less premium.

[wharfhouse]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

Yeah I generally like how IS mk4 looks more than ES, despite it being maybe slightly less practical, less space in the back etc. In other hand I think ES has more up-to date tech, so the price point would be important. In US, the IS sell noticeable cheaper so it is ok... It is actually had to say, because in my experience IS is just better built car and feel more premium than ES, which really feels like fancy Toyota and in IS mk4 obviously one get's latest LSS+ with widescreen, so the difference can't be that big between it and ES. So I think there would be compromises on both models, one is more premium with older tech, and the other one is little bit better tech, larger, but less premium.

Yep - but decision taken out of our hands in this case... May keep my current car a few more years now and see what's shaking our regards the EV situation and the ban on new ICE and hybrids... 

[Mylextoo]

Reading through these posts, I was wondering if the test drive of the RC300h F Sport included the paddle shifts. There’s a noticeable difference in the performance when using these as you can hold it in lower gear. Another mention was the fuel consumption. There is a huge difference in this depending on where you live. For instance, if you live in hilly terrains you will use more fuel. I proved this with my is 250, normally 32 mpg in Devon, but in Suffolk I hit 50 mpg. 

[Linas.P]

11 hours ago, Mylextoo said:

Reading through these posts, I was wondering if the test drive of the RC300h F Sport included the paddle shifts. There’s a noticeable difference in the performance when using these as you can hold it in lower gear. Another mention was the fuel consumption. There is a huge difference in this depending on where you live. For instance, if you live in hilly terrains you will use more fuel. I proved this with my is 250, normally 32 mpg in Devon, but in Suffolk I hit 50 mpg. 

There are no gears on RC300h, it is CVT, so it is just "fake" ratios. I think quite big criticism is how slow the car is off the line and generally accelerating - in this case paddle shifts makes no difference whatsoever, probably slows down the car even further. Once you are up-to speed RC300h actually feels reasonably good, say between 50-70MPH, I have used paddle shifts on twisty A/B-roads and they actually "feel" good - you can create effect of engine braking and you could get a ratio which "feels" better to get out of the corners. Most importantly it is just how it feels, it doesn't actually make car any faster and it still works within a limits of engine power. All in all, paddle shifts are just gimmick on CVT and can only be used in very specific and limited use cases. 

As for MPG, hybrids should actually be impacted less by hills than normal ICEVs, if hybrid is design correctly it should generate power when going downhill via regenerative braking and then use that energy when going up-hill. I would still put most of the economy down to the driver, RC300h is just quite unfortunate model in this case - it looks like sports cars, so it is normal that it attracts the drivers who wants sporty car, but if you ty to drive it like sporty car, then not only it disappoints in terms of performance , but actually returns horrible economy. 300h drive train in essence is designed to be efficient and not fun to drive, as result if one drives it just leisurely it is "okey", but if one drives it as the car suppose to be driven then it can only disappoint.