Are They Really That Bad

[nate73]

Mine has no bright red sticker in the filler flap. There's no evidence of one ever being there either.

I haven't been made aware of any official recall from Lexus. On purchase I asked my ever so reliable dealership if the car had had its fifth injector replaced. They said they'd get back to me. I'm still waiting for an answer. Wouldn't dare ask if there is an ECU recall; there's only so many excuses in the handbook you know.

The IS220d isn't bad, it's just not great. My own opinion is obviously tainted by the shoddy service I received from my dealer. It's hard to like something when you've been shafted. Even with the dealer issues set aside, I have to agree with Jamboo that the fuel economy of the car is not good unless you drive it like an old woman. If you drive it aggressively, but with mechanical sympathy to try and appreciate the torque and BHP, the MPG is worse than many petrol cars. And I still say the first gear ratio is pants.

My 'Red Sticker' looks like quite a recent addition. Problem with mine is the 5th inj. was replaced late Jan and remap. Filled up yesterday and the car has now decided to give me 33mpg dropped from 36mpg for last two tanks! Same journey, same speed. Roll on Wednesday - hopefully I can get a 250 as a courtesy car!

Agree with you on the gearing - they really screwed up with the rear axle. Should have made it the ratio about 2.7 instead of 2.4 a couple a hundred rpm in each gear for the same speed would make all the difference!

[FinLex]

Life is a bitch. You can't even drive like a lunatic and still get 50 MPG.

By the way, when the diesel particulate filter burns the nasty stuff it's been gathering, it uses extra fuel. I'm not sure how often this takes place, but I would guess only once in a while. I've noticed a slight drop in the tank average sometimes with no obvious reason, and I've come to think this is because of the DPF cleaning itself up. I try not to get all paranoid on just one bad tank average reading, but rather keep track on the long term. Another advantage of this is that it evens up the measurement errors that sometimes occur both on the onboard computer and when calculating the consumption filling up the tank.

On the gearing, I mostly agree. The normal version is a bit odd and the first gear a bit awkward. But I understand why they opted for it: to get a low official CO2 result. The Sport version is more user friendly: I can get a quick(ish) launch using the 1st, or I can take off smoothly on 2nd gear (without slipping the clutch).

[FinLex]

Hi guys! First of all excuse me for my basic english.. :shutit:

I want to ask if you've received a letter of recall for the fifth injector from lexus?! It's strange but i did find nothing in the forum about it..

In france, there is a big recall for the IS220, In addition to the new fifth injector that was appeared on july 2007, they finally get a new ECU's reprogrammation which is the best according to lexus..

Hi there and welcome!

I got a recall on the fifth injector about two weeks ago (mentioned it earlier in this thread). The injector was changed, but I was told that I already had the latest ECU update. Didn't make a big difference, but maybe a bit better fuel economy since.

[Matus]

my friend got the recall, too. He has 01/2007

I have 12/2005 and haven't received anything yet.

[nate73]

Life is a bitch. You can't even drive like a lunatic and still get 50 MPG.

By the way, when the diesel particulate filter burns the nasty stuff it's been gathering, it uses extra fuel. I'm not sure how often this takes place, but I would guess only once in a while. I've noticed a slight drop in the tank average sometimes with no obvious reason, and I've come to think this is because of the DPF cleaning itself up. I try not to get all paranoid on just one bad tank average reading, but rather keep track on the long term. Another advantage of this is that it evens up the measurement errors that sometimes occur both on the onboard computer and when calculating the consumption filling up the tank.

On the gearing, I mostly agree. The normal version is a bit odd and the first gear a bit awkward. But I understand why they opted for it: to get a low official CO2 result. The Sport version is more user friendly: I can get a quick(ish) launch using the 1st, or I can take off smoothly on 2nd gear (without slipping the clutch).

Finlex, It begs the question that if it only burns once in a while why is the mpg so bad over here? I cant find any specs on the exhaust system but can remember something about it also keeping the catalyst bed temp up for sulfur removal. Do you know if the dcat system has sensors to activate the 5th injector for NOx, PM removal or if its done on a time basis?

[FinLex]

Finlex, It begs the question that if it only burns once in a while why is the mpg so bad over here? I cant find any specs on the exhaust system but can remember something about it also keeping the catalyst bed temp up for sulfur removal. Do you know if the dcat system has sensors to activate the 5th injector for NOx, PM removal or if its done on a time basis?

It's not the reason for the bad mileage, in general. It's just one factor that results in fluctuating tank averages. My point is that there is no reason to panic if one tank is worse than another: there is at least this one built-in reason for such things.

I don't have any deeper knowledge on the structure of the d-cat system, but I think it has some way of knowing when it should clean itself up. So my money is on sensors rather than a fixed time interval.

[philthy]

Life is a bitch. You can't even drive like a lunatic and still get 50 MPG.

The point being made was that many petrol cars put out a better mpg performance when being driven aggressively.

[ThinDuke]

I've recently part ex'd an RX300 for an IS220d and although the mpg could probably be better I'm off to the filling station far less often so something is going right.

I do find the ride hard and gearing difficult to get used to (especially driving a manual which is just hard work in itself following 7 years with autos!) and sluggish to engage especially in 3rd.

Is there any way to get the gearing power/ratios modified? A 'car' guy at work suggested it but I wouldn't know where to start and if it was even possible on this car...?

Cheers

[ae92/ravoruva]

Finlex, It begs the question that if it only burns once in a while why is the mpg so bad over here? I cant find any specs on the exhaust system but can remember something about it also keeping the catalyst bed temp up for sulfur removal. Do you know if the dcat system has sensors to activate the 5th injector for NOx, PM removal or if its done on a time basis?

Yep, it has sensors, and the ECU control the activation of the fifth injector!

[FinLex]

The point being made was that many petrol cars put out a better mpg performance when being driven aggressively.

I kind of got that. But are you talking about petrol cars with similar power and weight? Because no matter how I drive my 220d, it gives me similar mileage to my Corolla 1.6 petrol driven the same way. The Corolla weighs 450 kgs less and has a whopping 110 hp, not to mention the lethargic torque...

Yes, driving style makes a lot of difference with the 220d. But this is more because of the huge amount of weight being accelerated every time you push the throttle than because of the engine being extraordinarily thirsty. You really need to keep the momentum when driving the 220d, or you will end up with a drop in the mileage. That's just physics.

I must further stress the weight of the 220d. Let's see, petrol cars that weigh about the same... Audi A6 3.2 FSI Quattro weighs 20 kgs less. BMW 530i weighs 55 kgs less. Now, get this: Jaguar XJR weighs just 5 kgs more! Would the Jag give you 30 MPG when driven aggressively? Sure it will go faster, but it will take A LOT more fuel.

If you want to blame Lexus for poor engineering, I would suggest you put it on them not being able to design a solid car without excess weight. Well, that and the gear ratios...

[nate73]

I've recently part ex'd an RX300 for an IS220d and although the mpg could probably be better I'm off to the filling station far less often so something is going right.

I do find the ride hard and gearing difficult to get used to (especially driving a manual which is just hard work in itself following 7 years with autos!) and sluggish to engage especially in 3rd.

Is there any way to get the gearing power/ratios modified? A 'car' guy at work suggested it but I wouldn't know where to start and if it was even possible on this car...?

Cheers

Gearbox on all the IS diesels are the same. However the rear axle on the sport model has a different ratio final drive. 3.2 rather than 2.4 for the other models, imagine it wouldn't be cost effective to change it.

[FinLex]

Gearbox on all the IS diesels are the same. However the rear axle on the sport model has a different ratio final drive. 3.2 rather than 2.4 for the other models, imagine it wouldn't be cost effective to change it.

I think any modifications on the gear ratios will cause problems with the authorities. The cars are tested for emissions as delivered by the manufacturer, and gear ratios are a big factor in the test results. Modify them and you'll end up having a car that is not officially approved for road traffic. Technically it should be relatively easy to change the standard final drive for another, but because of the forementioned problem I wouldn't recommend it.

[Scarlet Pimpernell]

I think the sulphur thing is a red herring. The comment that we could be harming our engines, invalidating our warranties is silly too, as you can only get Diesel in the UK which is compliant. Ever since Mr Brown (as exchequor) lowered duty on low sulphur fuels, it became the norm.

My fuel flap does have a red sticker, it says

" Use Low Sulphur Fuel" and then words along the lines of "go read handbook"...

It makes no mention on the sticker about Ultra low Sulphur, which is what most if not all garages sell...

Based on this, the sulphur thing could be, like I say, a herring of blush proportions

This whole argument about weight is also a tedious one. Yes the car is heavier than many cars, but to put it into context, there is no Jag available with the same engine to compare it to...and they are all automatic anyway...and who in their right mind would buy a Jag for economy? You'd be far more worried about the residual value of the thing...

On paper at least a BMW 525d is very economical and slightly off in the KG department. Check it HERE.

It has a 3 litre 6 Cyl diesel, and combined average of 45+mpg - urban 34+ tc, so it's comparable from the tested figures! Just look at the performance figures...I know most of you will jump on this and start going about "lab environments" and " not realistic tests" but it is the only yard stick you have other than testing yourself....if in the real world u could get mid 30's on a run and mid 20's in town u'd be chuffed with a 525d knowing it has a 3 litre oiler under the hood......they are the sort of figures that I have been getting (+ 10-15%) and that most people are getting with the 220d.

People buy diesels for one and one reason alone...Economy and/or tax breaks. Else they are unrefined, smelly etc...They are supposed to be fuel efficient...and with derv now costing 6-8% more than petrol, there is little point in getting any diesel unless it is much more efficient than it's petrol counterpart...by at least 20% to make the cost/benefit attractive...

PS - shock and horror - just noticed on the LGB site that the IS220d is Eu4 compliant and NOT Eu5. What do you all think to that? It's on the "Technical Data" page in the 220d - is it a mis print? I thought all along it was Eu5....!

EMISSIONS

Emissions Level Euro IV

CO2 Urban (g/km) 207

CO2 Extra Urban (g/km) 145

CO2 Combined (g/km) 168

One other thing - those freinds in Europe with a recall notice - can you ask why the 5th Inj part needs changing, and what other mods thy are doing? They should be able to give you an exact description and reasons...

[nate73]

I think the sulphur thing is a red herring. The comment that we could be harming our engines, invalidating our warranties is silly too, as you can only get Diesel in the UK which is compliant. Ever since Mr Brown (as exchequor) lowered duty on low sulphur fuels, it became the norm.

My fuel flap does have a red sticker, it says

" Use Low Sulphur Fuel" and then words along the lines of "go read handbook"...

It makes no mention on the sticker about Ultra low Sulphur, which is what most if not all garages sell...

Based on this, the sulphur thing could be, like I say, a herring of blush proportions

This whole argument about weight is also a tedious one. Yes the car is heavier than many cars, but to put it into context, there is no Jag available with the same engine to compare it to...and they are all automatic anyway...and who in their right mind would buy a Jag for economy? You'd be far more worried about the residual value of the thing...

On paper at least a BMW 525d is very economical and slightly off in the KG department. Check it HERE.

It has a 3 litre 6 Cyl diesel, and combined average of 45+mpg - urban 34+ tc, so it's comparable from the tested figures! Just look at the performance figures...I know most of you will jump on this and start going about "lab environments" and " not realistic tests" but it is the only yard stick you have other than testing yourself....if in the real world u could get mid 30's on a run and mid 20's in town u'd be chuffed with a 525d knowing it has a 3 litre oiler under the hood......they are the sort of figures that I have been getting (+ 10-15%) and that most people are getting with the 220d.

People buy diesels for one and one reason alone...Economy and/or tax breaks. Else they are unrefined, smelly etc...They are supposed to be fuel efficient...and with derv now costing 6-8% more than petrol, there is little point in getting any diesel unless it is much more efficient than it's petrol counterpart...by at least 20% to make the cost/benefit attractive...

PS - shock and horror - just noticed on the LGB site that the IS220d is Eu4 compliant and NOT Eu5. What do you all think to that? It's on the "Technical Data" page in the 220d - is it a mis print? I thought all along it was Eu5....!

EMISSIONS

Emissions Level Euro IV

CO2 Urban (g/km) 207

CO2 Extra Urban (g/km) 145

CO2 Combined (g/km) 168

One other thing - those freinds in Europe with a recall notice - can you ask why the 5th Inj part needs changing, and what other mods thy are doing? They should be able to give you an exact description and reasons...

Dont think you can dismiss the fuel issue Jamboo - it is the reason behind the coking of the components. BUT.... is that the cause of the mpg issue???

As I've mentioned before the non DCAT 140bhp D4D delivers 46mpg actual in my mates verso, which is a little heavier than the IS.

The BMW's are now well ahead of anyone in the engine stakes - petrol or diesel! There is a simple reason for there being so many of them - they're bloody good!

The reason for the 5th injector recall is for blockages - I mentioned before, I took a look at the post and pre mod versions. It's gone from two small slits to one larger slit to prevent this.

Roll on Wednesday for me, egr etc to be replaced!

The girlfriend said I could swap for her A180cdi! I laughed, but used it for work the other day and returned 46mpg round trip!!!

By the way hows yours running since the 20k service?

[FinLex]

Jamboo,

This sulphur thing isn't the whole story, but it could well be a part of it.

As to the 525d, where is the big difference between it and the 220d? They weigh the same, they have the same torque, BMW has 20 more hp, BMW claims 45.6 and Lexus 44.8. BMW's engine was introduced to the public two years later than the 220d, so it is a bit more advanced: it manages to give similar fuel economy while giving a bit more power. No surprise there. Both have been tested by Auto Motor und Sport in Germany and both had a test consumption around 9 litres per 100 km, which translates to 31.4 MPG. So when driven aggressively (as that magazine does), they both return about the same mileage.

PS. The reason for the recall was the potential coking of the 5th injector and the limp home mode that sometimes resulted from it.

[Scarlet Pimpernell]

Spot on - the difference as I mentioned is that the BMW is a 3.0l 6 Cylinder engine, smooth, powerfull enough (very quick if you look at the stats), and is as economical as a 4 Cyl 2.2 diesel from Toyota...

During the test, they will have driven it hard. And lets face it, though they weigh a similar amount, the BMW engine will be quicker than the Lexus one at any rev band, gear...and yet it still delivers similar economy. If you drove both cars conservatively, I have a nagging feling that the BMW will be closer to the stated figures, where'as the Lexus struggles most of the time to get within 10% of those figures, unles you drive it very carefuly, with all mods, clean pipes and new 5th Injectors!

We have a family of BMW's and Merc's. The BMW's are always so much more economical. The new Petrol engines are engineered very well indeed...

Mine is better in town (consistently now high 20's), but I've had no chance to do my regular runs to the south - it'll now be April before that happens...but I did 270 odd miles last week after the service and it didn't seem much better overall.

[philthy]

The point being made was that many petrol cars put out a better mpg performance when being driven aggressively.

I kind of got that. But are you talking about petrol cars with similar power and weight? Because no matter how I drive my 220d, it gives me similar mileage to my Corolla 1.6 petrol driven the same way. The Corolla weighs 450 kgs less and has a whopping 110 hp, not to mention the lethargic torque...

Yes, driving style makes a lot of difference with the 220d. But this is more because of the huge amount of weight being accelerated every time you push the throttle than because of the engine being extraordinarily thirsty. You really need to keep the momentum when driving the 220d, or you will end up with a drop in the mileage. That's just physics.

I must further stress the weight of the 220d. Let's see, petrol cars that weigh about the same... Audi A6 3.2 FSI Quattro weighs 20 kgs less. BMW 530i weighs 55 kgs less. Now, get this: Jaguar XJR weighs just 5 kgs more! Would the Jag give you 30 MPG when driven aggressively? Sure it will go faster, but it will take A LOT more fuel.

If you want to blame Lexus for poor engineering, I would suggest you put it on them not being able to design a solid car without excess weight. Well, that and the gear ratios...

If I drive the 220 aggressively I will not get 30mpg. Not a chance! It struggles to make 34 driving like an OAP! An S40D5 would easily out perform it on mpg. I'm hoping I eventually get used to the 1st gear quirkiness. Not giving it much hope though.

I'm not surprised there's a vast difference in mpg between an RX300 and an IS220d. You could drive a Ferrari and probably still get better mpg than you got in your RX. I get better mpg than I got from my S80 but they are two completely different cars. A 2.4 petrol large executive with a heavy chassis tuned for comfort against a smaller compact executive supposedly designed with economy in mind. You may as well compare the RX with a Nissan Micra and get even better fuel differences.

[philthy]

Jamboo,

This sulphur thing isn't the whole story, but it could well be a part of it.

As to the 525d, where is the big difference between it and the 220d? They weigh the same, they have the same torque, BMW has 20 more hp, BMW claims 45.6 and Lexus 44.8. BMW's engine was introduced to the public two years later than the 220d, so it is a bit more advanced: it manages to give similar fuel economy while giving a bit more power. No surprise there. Both have been tested by Auto Motor und Sport in Germany and both had a test consumption around 9 litres per 100 km, which translates to 31.4 MPG. So when driven aggressively (as that magazine does), they both return about the same mileage.

PS. The reason for the recall was the potential coking of the 5th injector and the limp home mode that sometimes resulted from it.

At least in a 5 series you get a boot big enough to put stuff in it and a split fold rear seat option. A 5 series isn't a bad looking car to me either, just boring as hell on the inside and has an overinflate price tag because of that badge. If the IS at least had split fold option my opinion of it would improve.

[FinLex]

Spot on - the difference as I mentioned is that the BMW is a 3.0l 6 Cylinder engine, smooth, powerfull enough (very quick if you look at the stats), and is as economical as a 4 Cyl 2.2 diesel from Toyota...

During the test, they will have driven it hard. And lets face it, though they weigh a similar amount, the BMW engine will be quicker than the Lexus one at any rev band, gear...and yet it still delivers similar economy. If you drove both cars conservatively, I have a nagging feling that the BMW will be closer to the stated figures, where'as the Lexus struggles most of the time to get within 10% of those figures, unles you drive it very carefuly, with all mods, clean pipes and new 5th Injectors!

We have a family of BMW's and Merc's. The BMW's are always so much more economical. The new Petrol engines are engineered very well indeed...

Mine is better in town (consistently now high 20's), but I've had no chance to do my regular runs to the south - it'll now be April before that happens...but I did 270 odd miles last week after the service and it didn't seem much better overall.

The cars weigh the same and have similar torque, which means they are equally fast when driven in torque band. Outside its torque band the 220d is slower because the smaller displacement makes the engine less flexible. Still, the power-to-weight ratio gives a very accurate description of the performance of these two. And that is in real life, not on paper. Reviews show it, too.

If you give the BMW extra credit for having six cylinders, fine. I don't. Maybe it's a bit more refined, but Lexus is plenty good for me.

I wouldn't be so sure on BMW getting closer to its claimed figures than 220d. BMW's latest engine generation is a prime example of how the engine/gearbox combo can be heavily optimized for the official test and nothing else. Auto Motor und Sport listed the tested cars that were furthest away from the official figures. There were three BMWs and a Mini on the top 10! To be fair, I must say that the GS 450h was the worst but the 220d wasn't anywhere near the top. And this isn't just an one time deal with BMWs, there are lots of tests showing the same trend.

[dgman]

lets not forget the £10k+price difference.that would keep mine running for years.thats the true cost of bmw economy.

[FinLex]

If I drive the 220 aggressively I will not get 30mpg. Not a chance! It struggles to make 34 driving like an OAP! An S40D5 would easily out perform it on mpg. I'm hoping I eventually get used to the 1st gear quirkiness. Not giving it much hope though.

I'm not surprised there's a vast difference in mpg between an RX300 and an IS220d. You could drive a Ferrari and probably still get better mpg than you got in your RX. I get better mpg than I got from my S80 but they are two completely different cars. A 2.4 petrol large executive with a heavy chassis tuned for comfort against a smaller compact executive supposedly designed with economy in mind. You may as well compare the RX with a Nissan Micra and get even better fuel differences.

So are saying you could match your current mileage with a XJR?

S40 D5 is smaller than 220d and weighs a lot less.

S80 2.4 weighs less than 220d.

Are you getting my point, yet?

[philthy]

If I drive the 220 aggressively I will not get 30mpg. Not a chance! It struggles to make 34 driving like an OAP! An S40D5 would easily out perform it on mpg. I'm hoping I eventually get used to the 1st gear quirkiness. Not giving it much hope though.

I'm not surprised there's a vast difference in mpg between an RX300 and an IS220d. You could drive a Ferrari and probably still get better mpg than you got in your RX. I get better mpg than I got from my S80 but they are two completely different cars. A 2.4 petrol large executive with a heavy chassis tuned for comfort against a smaller compact executive supposedly designed with economy in mind. You may as well compare the RX with a Nissan Micra and get even better fuel differences.

So are saying you could match your current mileage with a XJR?

S40 D5 is smaller than 220d and weighs a lot less.

S80 2.4 weighs less than 220d.

Are you getting my point, yet?

Who says a XJR is more economical than the IS?

Maybe Lexus should have held this car back until they had a) done some research into what a deisel actually means B) how to combine economy and light weight and c) build a deisel that doesn't have to keep going in for engine part replacements to try and get anywhere near claimed mpg figures. You can't make excuses for "bad" design specifics. The S80, (my model), was a similar weight to the IS. Now how do Volvo manage to get a much bigger car to weigh the same as or even less than an IS? It has just as good rust prevention and crash resistance as a Lexus, probably better seeing how they've been around for decades and Lexus are only a "young" manufacturer allegedly. (The years of Toyota engineering obviously forgotten.) The point being made was my S80 was a different class of vehicle and not comparable to the IS. The engine was old technology and not intended for clean burn or economy.

The UK IS220d is crap on fuel economy for a deisel unless you drive it like a geriatric. Even then it still isn't as good as many of the opposition. It is an also ran in the compact executive class. Nice try, but could do much better. Do you get my point?

[FinLex]

Who says a XJR is more economical than the IS?

Maybe Lexus should have held this car back until they had a) done some research into what a deisel actually means B) how to combine economy and light weight and c) build a deisel that doesn't have to keep going in for engine part replacements to try and get anywhere near claimed mpg figures. You can't make excuses for "bad" design specifics. The S80, (my model), was a similar weight to the IS. Now how do Volvo manage to get a much bigger car to weigh the same as or even less than an IS? It has just as good rust prevention and crash resistance as a Lexus, probably better seeing how they've been around for decades and Lexus are only a "young" manufacturer allegedly. (The years of Toyota engineering obviously forgotten.) The point being made was my S80 was a different class of vehicle and not comparable to the IS. The engine was old technology and not intended for clean burn or economy.

The UK IS220d is crap on fuel economy for a deisel unless you drive it like a geriatric. Even then it still isn't as good as many of the opposition. It is an also ran in the compact executive class. Nice try, but could do much better. Do you get my point?

Since I was talking about the Jag when I mentioned 30 MPG, I took your reference to it as a counterargument. My bad. I guess we agree that a petrol car that weighs as much as the 220d can't hit the same mileage?

S80 is lighter because it is FWD, it has a less rigid chassis and it is lower spec. It doesn't have better crash resistance, last gen S80 got four EuroNCAP stars while IS got five.

Let me quote myself: "If you want to blame Lexus for poor engineering, I would suggest you put it on them not being able to design a solid car without excess weight." Same could be said about Alfa Romeo and Peugeot. If you want to compare the fuel efficiency of the engine as such, I think there are two prime candidates: Alfa 159 2.4 JTDM and Peugeot 407 HDi 170. Same generation cars, about the same features, about the same weight. Give these a spin and see if you can top the 220d.

[dgman]

if you really think that the car is crap why not just take the hit.buy an a4 170 .or perhaps a bmw like the e46 with its appetite for turbos and ingesting inlet manifold parts not to mention subframes working free.you really need to keep things in perspective.

[06G220D]

I know this point has been made before but I think it's worth repeating.

If you want to compare cars from an economical point of view you need to look at the full cost of ownership.

To do this you look at

upfront purchase cost

less

value on disposal (you will probably have to estimate this)

plus operating costs i.e. fuel, maintenance, tyres, roadtax and insurance etc

Looking at fuel in isolation gives a misleading picture as it ignores differences in the other areas which, as we know, are significant.