FinLex

Not the type of car Lexus is normally associated with? Would have to agree with you on that, since it is their first diesel...

I've heard some very credible rumours about the facelift. Deliveries should start in October. The diesel will remain. Besides the minor optical changes, there will be some modifications on the suspension, steering and the manual gearbox. The latter is the big news, I think.

I did a comparison a few weeks back. You can read my findings here: http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=51141

No one should make any calculations based on the official figures... They are not even comparable between two cars and they most certainly don't represent your everyday driving. I know your government uses them and ours does too, but they really shouldn't. Official figures are rubbish, and that's that. Test drive is the only way to know for sure which car is economical for you and which is not. I got better mileage from the 220d Sport than the regular version. Based on the official figures, that shouldn't be possible.

Or a 220d Sport... But the dealers would remain the same, so I guess there's no point. I would give thumbs up for Audi. Volvo, not so sure. Seen a lot of trouble with them lately.

Harv, so you decided to prove once and for all that you don't bother reading my posts before you thrash them?

Good to hear that BMW's ED is good for something. For me, it doesn't do a thing. When I say that Lexus is the cleanest in its class, that is exactly what I mean. MB E 300 Bluetec is significantly better than Lexus in NOX, but even that can't touch Lexus' CO level. Plus it's a lot more expensive. BMW 320d is behind in both NOX and CO. Audi A4 with the new 2.0 TDI (170 hp) is the first real challenger in the class, being a bit better in NOX but a lot more behind in CO. Lexus is Euro5. It's been discussed a lot, since Lexus doesn't say it in the spec sheet. That is only because Euro5 doesn't do anything for now. CO2 is another thing completely. CO2 is not air pollution, as such. The only reason for all the buzz on CO2 is the global warming. Serious as that may be, cancer and respiratory deceases are more so IMHO. You could say Lexus has been standing still since the introduction of the 220d, for they haven't updated the engine. But then again, it's only been less than three years. The mid-life facelift would be the logical time to do a touchup, so fingers crossed. Some say Lexus will drop the diesel altogether, but I don't buy it. Oh yes, the emission figures. Here's the whole package. Lexus IS 220d: CO 0.13 g/km ; NOX 0.16 g/km ; Particulates 0.002 g/km MB E 300 A Bluetec: CO 0.187 g/km ; NOX 0.028 g/km ; Particulates 0.001 g/km BMW 320d: CO 0.249 g/km ; NOX 0.171 g/km ; Particulates 0 g/km Audi A4 2.0 TDI 170 hp: CO 0.189 g/km ; NOX 0.131 g/km ; Particulates 0.0011 g/km Euro5 for diesels: CO 0.50 g/km ; NOX 0.23 g/km ; Particulates 0.018 g/km First of all, all these are Euro5 compliant. As you can see, CO level is very good on Lexus. In NOX, MB with its very sophisticated deNOX technology is the clear winner, Audi is better than Lexus as well but the difference isn't as big. Particulate amount is very, very low on all the candidates, so I would say the differencies are negligible.

The fuel economy meter is a precision tool for figuring out whether or not the engine is labouring. Good mileage -> no problem. Bad mileage -> downshift. The reason why the handbook says the 6th gear shouldn't be used below 75 is that it is the foolproof figure. At 75 mph you can use it even going up a steep hillside. On the other hand, going down hill the engine isn't labouring even at 50 mph.

That's a lot better than my personal best, 53.3 MPG. I guess I have the mileage problem, too!

Did you miss all the gentlemen with reasonable mileage in that thread I posted? Or in all the other ones? Or don't they just count in your book? You just go ahead and judge your opinion on real life experience. You haven't tried them all, so don't say they're all faulty. I haven't tried them all, and I'm not saying they're all good. Okay?

There are many who are reporting 50+ MPG on a run, and most seem to get around 45. Remember this thread? http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...=47633&st=0 I kind of thought you would be interested in getting to the bottom of this mileage problem. Silly me. That's what I was trying to help you with in the first place. Now I can see why you would call the 220d in general a disaster. Your trying to cause Lexus maximum PR damage, so they would work harder on your case. Effective as it could be, I'm not too keen on the idea of you claiming most 220d's having this problem. That is a serious accusation, one that requires serious evidence. I have yet to see a single 220d that can't be driven with reasonable fuel economy, but even based on that I'm not saying there can't be plenty of such cars out there. See the difference?

I guess that answers my question... I don't understand your motive, but maybe I don't need to. Let's just leave it with that. I regularly get 50+ MPG driving in what is now my very normal driving style. That is about 10 percent less than I would with the very best diesels in the class. Not being the top pick for everything is not the same as being a failure, in my book. I'll believe that Lexus is dropping diesels when I see it. It is a huge market segment, one that I can't believe they could afford to drop. Toyota is not going to, that's for sure, and when there are diesel engines being developed in-house, there is no sense in not using them for the Lexus line-up as well.

I understand perfectly well that I have a different gearing than yours. You don't seem to understand that the engine is the same! How many times in this thread alone have you said that the engine is an utter failure? Are you now saying that it's not the engine, but the standard gearing? Because on that I could just about agree with you. Each and every 220d that I've driven (there are five) have had terrible tank averages on the BC when I've started driving them. Each have returned something entirely different when driven the way I drive. That goes to prove my point: the fuel economy of the 220d is very vulnerable to differencies in driving style. Not a good trait, but it doesn't bother me since I can get the mileage I expected. By the way: my expectations were not based on the official figures, because I know they are BS. Just look at the figures of the standard 220d and the Sport and you'll see my point. I have not completely ruled out differencies between UK spec and other 220d's. I just don't know why there would be any. It doesn't fit in the Toyota/Lexus philosophy of using the same parts and technology where ever it's possible. And there are many UK owners who are reporting mileage similar to mine. Earlier cars vs. later ones... Could be. Slight improvements on the production line are well in line with the manufacturer's philosophy. Much more likely than the geographic modifications theory. Why do you say that I don't understand what has been pointed out to me? Have I said that there can't be economy related issues with 220d owners? I haven't and there are. There are also those like myself, who report reasonable figures. The reason for this split in opinions is what the members of this community have been relentlessly trying to find out. Theories that have been suggested there are plenty. I've already posted at least half a dozen of them in this thread. You haven't commented on these at all, which raises the question: Are you more interested in bashing the 220d than in trying to find out the reason for your troubles?

Harv, if you could look at things from even a slightly more objective perspective, you would see that there is basically just one flaw in the 220d engine: it doesn't return good mileage in heavy urban traffic. Why, I say WHY, can you not see that this isn't enough to make it a complete failure? When you say that the engine is a total lemon, you're basically saying that I and everyone else who bought one have screwed up. I scanned the field, made a thorough comparison, decided on the 220d and so far have not had any second thoughts. When you say that the 220d is a failure, you're also saying that my car is terrible and that I shouldn't be happy with it. When you keep repeating it over and over again, whilst I keep telling you that I really am happy with it, you're basically telling me that you know better than me. Can you not see how frustrating that is? It's not good for you, fine, but try to accept that it is good for me and many others, I'm sure. It is ludicrous to think that any car manufacturer would go back to Euro 4 limits just to get better mileage. The diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides are very dangerous emissions. Euro 5 is a given, every manufacturer is going there and that's the way it should be. You not being happy with your car isn't enough to convince me of any serious damage to the Lexus brand. Lexus has gotten a lot of new customers with the 220d and I know for a fact that many of them are very happy with their car. I can see you feel let down, but you really should try to keep yourself from making too coarse conclusions. Please accept that there are many perfectly happy 220d owners who don't share your visions of disaster. One more thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the official fuel consumption figures are not manufacturers' claims. They are the results of an official, neutral test cycle. The 220d as well as every other car out there, really do return the official figures when driven in the way the official test is driven. The problem is that absolutely no one, not even me with my "impossible, unrealistic driving style", can drive like that. This is a serious problem with the test, not with the cars or manufacturers. Lexus is not alone in this and in my experience not even the worst off.

Geoffers, That is exactly what I'm saying. The 220d can be competitive on fuel economy, when the conditions are right. When they are not, the mileage drops more violently than with most other diesels. I would say a lot of these less-than-optimal conditions are typical to urban environment. For extra-urban the 220d is fine, for urban it's not. That might very well be the reason why I haven't heard a single complaint on fuel economy from a Finnish 220d driver. Extra-urban we have a lot, urban not that much. Lexus IS 220d, the expert's choice for rural driving! :P

I tested a lot of cars the last time I was buying. Back then BMW 320d had the 163 hp diesel, Audi A4 the 140 hp, VW Passat the 170 hp, MB 200 CDI the 136 hp and Alfa 159 the 200 hp. Of these, BMW and Audi gave better fuel economy than the 220d, VW and MB about the same than Lexus, and Alfa was worse. I also tested both gearing for the 220d and found out that the sport version was, indeed, better. Since then, I've refined my driving style a bit more to suit my car. I've tested some other cars, too. Audi A4 1.8 TFSI and IS 250 A are the last two. Audi returned 42 MPG in my typical A-road driving, where I usually get around 50 MPG with my car. IS 250 A returned 40.4 cruising at around 60, whereas my car gave 48.7 on the same exact route. Urban driving with 250 A showed 29.4 and my car, as mentioned, 31.4. Those two are petrol, of course. The best I've got out of the Audi A4 1.9 TDI 130 hp I used to drive semi-regularly was around 55 MPG. Haven't tested the new common-rail Audi 2.0 TDI or the 177 hp BMW, but what I've read about them in the tests, I would expect those to give me 50+ tank averages and 55+ on a run. No more, no less. Been planning to give these a go for a while now, but just don't seem to get to it.

Well said. I too hope that everyone could be happy with their car. And that includes Harv.

Think I need to agree with Harv here, I wouldn't be able to tolerate having to drive a car that required so much thought, driving would just be so much more tiring! Agree on what? I'm not saying that it's a joy to drive the 220d in urban environment, but that is the way it needs to be driven to get proper mileage. If that sounds intolerable to you, then the 220d isn't the car for you, either. And that's just fine by me. But the 220d works for me. I'm able to not only tolerate, but enjoy driving it. That seems to be a crime around here, which I just don't get. If I don't find it uneconomical, tiring or troublesome, then it's okay to call me a moron and ignore everything I say? Quite frankly, that is what Harv seems to be doing.

Harv, you completely missed my point. You don't have to drive the way I described, but if you don't then you shouldn't be complaining on the poor fuel economy, either. The fact is that the 220d will not give you good mileage, if you don't drive it like that. If you won't, then it's your fault. If you can't, then you have the wrong car. In short, go get another car and stop whining. So the secret behind the British engineering is denying the facts? Good luck, my mate.

We have similar background, but very different views on this matter. There most definitely is a special driving style for this car. I've driven a lot of diesels, VAG especially. Not a single one of them has been as delicate as the 220d. It has to driven between 1500 and 2000 rpm and full stops have to be avoided at all cost. Uphill driving, not to mention uphill accelerating, is poison. Keeping the momentum is essential, even more so than with any other car I've driven. That is extremely difficult in heavy urban traffic, which is why I don't recommend the 220d to anyone for that kind of use. But in extra-urban conditions, driving like I said, it returns proper mileage. Not top class, but not terrible either. You seem to give the 220d absolutely no credit for having the cleanest diesel engine in the class even almost three years after its introduction. I know you can't see the results of that in everyday use, but the effect is there. Now, I accept that there really are tradeoffs in producing the cleanest diesel engine in the class. One of them is the effect it has on the mileage. Nothing comes for free, but still credit should be given where credit is due. All things considered, I give the 220d engine a lot of credit. It's the cleanest in the class, it's very torque, it's way more refined than many other in the class (VAG pumpe-düse diesels especially), and at least for me not that uneconomical, either. It is a bit too fragile on economy, though, and combined with the weight and gearing of the 220d, that can cause a lot of worries for anyone trying to get stellar mileage out of it. It is not as good as BMW, Merc, VAG or even GM in some things, but none of them are as good as the Lexus in others. You win some, you lose some. I must disagree with you on whether or not Lexus is comparable with any other diesel car in the class. I think it most definitely is, even if it's not for everyone. The competition is tough, though, and age is starting to weigh down on the 220d. I really hope that Lexus will give the diesel engine a touchup soon, otherwise it will start to fade away as a competitive alternative.

Harv, not everything I said was pointed at you. The driving style part, for one. I just wrote a general view on all the aspects of this infamous mileage problem with the 220d. A few months back I wrote in a thread a short description of my driving style. A few of the responses were something like "I can't drive like that" or "That can't be the right way"! So I was getting the mileage these guys wanted, but they were telling me I was wrong? :duh: Now, what you did in your last message was exactly what I've seen many people doing: telling references with other cars. As I said, they don't count. This is another car and another world. It needs to be driven in the right way for it, not in the right way for other cars. And if your driving style or conditions or whatever just don't work for the 220d, then I would suggest you move on, like Harrydavy did. The car is what it is, and if you just can't make it fit your needs, then you need another car. It is as simple as that. What I still don't get is that the ones getting poor mileage seem to be telling me that there is nothing wrong with their driving, it's all in the car. I'm getting 48 MPG tank after tank and 50+ on a run, easy. If the car is the same, surely the difference must be in the driving? Okay, so not everyone can do their driving purely in extra-urban environments. As I said, urban driving is not the 220d's homefield. If you look at the gear ratios, this becomes very evident. The sport version (which I have), is better but still far from perfect. The 31.4 I mentioned is, as said, the very worst case scenario in Finland. That is downtown Helsinki in the rush hour with the eternal (it seems) road constructions all around. The slowest leg, about a quarter-mile from the Parliament House to the Forum parking hall, took me 20 minutes. So, first gear most of the time, second at best and a lot of idling. The rest of the test run wasn't quite as bad, but third gear was a rare thing. So I think it's fair to say that my car isn't that bad on fuel economy. Maybe some are not the same. But Lexus trying to fix it isn't real evidence that there is an actual problem with the car. This fuel economy issue is real because some Lexus' customers are struggling with it. I just think that if there was a concrete malfunction, they already would have come up with a solution. Therefore I think those still complaining are expecting the car to do something it just can't do. There are a lot of things the 220d can't do, because it is far from being perfect. But no-one in their right mind can say that anything else in the class is perfect, even the all-mighty BMW. There are different needs, there are different solutions. Each to their own, I say. One more thing, harv. Somehow I'm getting the impression you think that every 220d in England is faulty. I don't share that view, not at all. I've seen many posts from English 220d owners reporting similar mileage to mine. In fact, on this forum most of the complaining has been down to just a handful of people. I really think that the car is the same everywhere, but the driving conditions are not. There just seems to be some environments especially in the big English cities that the 220d can't really cope with. The 220d seriously isn't an all-rounder, but that doesn't make it terrible, as such.

Harv, you're again making a bit of an overgeneralization when you say things like "its really really sad that they had the opertunity to compete with bmw but on the diesel front they have shut the door", "i really should just accept it but unless people keep on moaning its never going to get any better" and "lovely car lexus but terrible engine and worse gearbox ... you got it wrong". We know you're not happy. Still, you shouldn't take the authorization to speak for all the 220d owners, as you seem to be doing. As far as my opinion goes, 220d does compete (quite succesfully) with BMW on the diesel front and there is nothing to really moan about. The engine is powerful, easy on the ears and, even today, cleaner than anything else in the class, while on the fuel economy front not quite the top pick. Gearbox isn't the best, especially for urban driving, but for a highway cruiser it's not that bad. And now to the actual point: I'm fully aware that these are my personal opinions, based on my personal experience. They do not represent the views of the whole community, which I ackowledge. I'm only telling my side of the tale. I just hope that everyone else would stick to doing the same and let all the readers of these forums to draw their own conclusions. We all have our own expectations, our own needs and our own feelings. Yours are as valuable as mine, and vice versa. What is a gem of a car for me, could very well be an absolute nightmare for someone else. That is why no one should try to speak for anyone but themselves. My car has caused me no extra trouble. It makes me forget the cruel world outside when I'm driving it. It returns a tank average of about 48 MPG all the time and never, no matter what the conditions are, drops below 45 MPG on a run. The absolute worst I've had was the 31.4, that I got on the urban test I did a while ago against the IS 250 A. The traffic and the route on that test was the absolute worse case scenario in Finland. Okay, London is another thing, but still 23 MPG is a long way from 31.4. Urban driving is not the usage that the 220d is meant for, but I would say it should return 30 MPG or better NO MATTER WHAT. So the question remains: why are some of you guys not getting similar mileage? My answer is, that there is no single answer. For some of you, it could be the way you drive. I know you say that it can't be that, that you've had good mileage in that or that other car or that you've already tried a different driving style with the 220d. Well, it's a different car and it needs a different driving style. If the first try don't succeed, try again. I had to do some serious alternations on my driving style and, in fact, habits. Not just the way I accelerate, shift gears etc, but much much more: route decisions, scheduling etc. I avoid cold starts, short trips, heavy traffic, altitude differencies and what not. It may sound funny, but once I've got accustomed to it, it doesn't bother me at all. I care enough for the running costs and, maybe in a lesser amount, the environment to make the effort. And in the end, it has paid off. For some of you, it could be the different driving circumstances. I only do serious urban driving occasionally. It means, that if there is any kind of a learning element in the car somewhere, my urban driving isn't enough to make it more "aggressive". If you drive urban all the time, it might be different. Another thing is the DPF, which needs to burn the particles and soot from time to time. In extra-urban driving, the filter doesn't get as dirty in the first place, and the cleaning could very well be more efficient than in urban. If the filter is too full all the time, I'm sure it will affect the mileage. What else? Sulphur content of fuel, different wheel sizes, all kinds of small modifications to the car, maybe even an actual fault in some of them... Combine enough of these factors together, and you could easily start from the 50+ MPG on a run and end up to, say, 33 MPG. The problems with Harv and co. are real, no doubt about it. But there are so many factors in this equation, that the ultimate solution is in all likelihood unreachable. Sure, you can put Lexus jump through a loop if you have the energy, but I would suggest you rather go find a better car for your needs. Harrydavy, for one, has done just that and I'm glad he is happy now. It does no good to anyone to keep badmouthing the 220d. It's not a terrible car through and through, it's just made for a specific kind of use and to meet specific kinds of needs. If it's terrible at something, then it's at being an all-rounder!

I finally had a decent go at the issue of 250 Auto fuel economy. Had the 30 000 km (20k miles) service done on my 220d Sport and used the time to do a test run on a base model 250 A. Did both a cruising leg and an urban round in moderate traffic. Cruising at around 60 mph returned 7.0 litres per 100 km (40.4 MPG). Urban returned 9.6 l/100km (29.4 MPG). Good numbers, as I expected. Did the same route with my own car after the service and got 5.8 l/100km (48.7 MPG) cruising and 9.0 l/100km (31.4 MPG) urban. Since most of my driving is extra-urban cruising, 220d is the one for me. As I expected and have said many times, urban driving is where the 250 A is excellent, both in comfort and in fuel economy. End note: The base model 250 A costs about the same as the 220d Sport here in Finland. Ended up missing the extra toys. I'm sticking with my car! PS. Consumption numbers from the BC.

For anything below 75 mph, Sport every time. In Finland, you can get leather with the Sport and you can also get the shorter gear ratios with the highest spec version. Funny, that it isn't so in the UK.

Many owners are perfectly happy with their 220d. It's just that we happy owners don't keep repeating our opinions as frequently as those who have had problems or just don't like diesels. A while ago it seemed to be almost unacceptable to say anything positive about the 220d, which raised a question: Why bother? If I'm happy, I don't need anyone telling me that I shouldn't be...