FinLex

Guys, you're not getting me right. The manual is correct on the normal model, but wrong on the Sport. At least my manual is. It says that with a normal ratio you shouldn't use 6th gear below 120 kmph, which is about 1800 RPM. At the same time it says that with a Sport you shouldn't use 6th gear below 100 kmph, which is about 1900 RPM. There is no logical explonation for the Sport needing more revs than the normal version. Less speed means less drag, which means you need less torque, which means you need less revs. I've come to realise that the 6th gear on my Sport is not labouring from ~1700 RPM, which equals about 85 kmph (53 mph). Besides the vibrations, there is another and even more accurate way of telling whether the engine is labouring or not: the fuel economy. If you drive on too low RPM, you're getting bad MPG figures. I think it's safe to say I'm getting pretty decent mileage, so I'm 100 % sure I'm not labouring my engine.

I use 6th from 50mph, and I think I'm very cautious about underreving. I know the manual says 62, but the manual is wrong. In fact, it's wrong on all gears regarding the Sport model, because the minimum speeds are not at all in line with the speeds for the normal version. Same revs on same gear -> ~30 percent less speed with the Sport.

I'm not saying my experience is more valid than yours, mate. I don't have your experiences, so I can't compare them to mine. All I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time trying to recognize your points in my experiences from both cars. I had a petrol Volvo as well, and while the engine sound is different in the 220d, I don't find it any more irritating than with the Volvo. The Volvo was overall more noisy, so the creaks were a bit less intrusive than with the 220d, but still I located more creaks in the Volvo than I have in the 220d. There is a good chance that our different views are a result of different circumstances. The Volvo didn't like really cold temperatures, which is a bit odd considering it's a Swedish design. When the weather got arctic, my Volvo creaked violently. Not so with the Lexus. Also, the rough roads here in Finland result in tire noise being the dominating component in overall noise. On smoother surfaces the engine and wind noise account for more of the experienced noise. This means that one car can be more silent on smooth surface and another on rough roads. I know you think that the roads aren't that good in the UK, either, but believe me when I say that they are in a completely different league than our so-called roads. So, no hard feelings, digg. I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason why our experiences differ so much. I'm not saying your view is wrong, I'm just saying that it's not at all similar to mine.

More comments that I can't help but wonder. S60 more silent than 220d? No way. Less dash creaks? Definitely not! More space? Well, maybe a bit more in the back. And the folding rear seats is something that would be nice to have, although I only had use for them about once a year. I had a S60 2.4T back in the day when it was a relatively new model. Back then it was a very good car, but the handling dynamics vs. comfort wasn't exactly spot on. With the 17" wheels it was too bouncy, had too much torque steering and was way too loud (all big factors in Finland, the roads are extremely rough). So I downgraded to 16" wheels, which did the trick but also took the handling down a step. Since I couldn't find a balance between these factors, after about 18 months I traded the Volvo for an Audi A4 1.8T, that I had until I got the 220d in January 07. From these three, Audi and Lexus are equally impressive, and Volvo is quite a bit behind these. I didn't have any serious reliability issues with the S60 despite it being an early model (in fact, I had more trouble with my Audi), but to me it seems that Volvo's quality control has been going downhill since. One thing that Volvo has going for it is the seats. There 220d comes second, I must admit. But all in all, the S60 is a bit of a relic: Not a bad car, but not up to the modern day standards, either.

That's all fine by me. I have zero experience on the UK dealers, but I have owned both a S60 and a 220d. What comes to the cars themselves, IMHO 220d is better in every aspect except that it can't be had with an auto box. And that's something I don't care about.

I can't believe what I'm reading! How can anyone consider S60 superior to 220d? S60 is seriously outdated, it's handling is terrible and, worst of all, Volvo's quality control has been really bad recently. The new S80 is a decent car, but I've already heard of several cases of S80 owners in serious problems with their cars, and by serious problems I mean that the car is utterly unusable, not just these niggles that most of us here are reporting on the 220d. At least two of these cases are not just rumours, since I've witnessed the problems myself! I hope the next S60 will be a different story. I honestly can't see any reason to go with the S60 apart from if you really must have an auto box with a diesel.

Sounds about right. Apart from fitting it longitudinal in the 220d, this diesel engine has been unchanged since it was introduced in Toyota Avensis almost three years ago. An update is due. One thing is for sure: Toyota is not dropping d4d! Lexus might have considered it, but Toyota can't give away that big a market segment.

First of all, congrats on the new ride! The wait is evil but the price will be great. I don't think the diesel rides any higher than the petrol. There is also very little difference in the weight (about 15 kg), so that surely can't justify any changes to the springs. And finally, to give my usual against-most-other-opinions point of view, the diesel should give you a lot better mileage than the petrol. 50+ MPG isn't impossible and my personal worst is 42. That is with a Sport, mind you!

According to my calculations, 60mph (real speed) on 5th with a standard version should be about 2000 RPM. Same speed on 6th with a sport is about 1800 RPM. So the difference isn't that big, but I've come to realise that over 2000 RPM the fuel economy drops quite quickly. So with a standard version, when your driving 60+mph but not fast enough for the 6th gear, your getting worse fuel economy than you would be getting with a sport.

It seems to me that the poll is not quite representative, since I have yet to meet the first 220d owner who has serious problems with fuel economy. There are not that many of us 220d owners here in Finland, so that may be the reason. Still, if half of the owners were struggling with this, I should have already met several of them! And a bit There has been a lot of discussion here in Finland (and in German car magazines, too) on the new BMW Efficient Dynamics models and how they seem to be really struggling to achieve their claimed fuel efficiency numbers. To me, it seems there is a general trend towards official numbers drifting away from the real life fuel consumption. Personally, I think this is more because of the outdated official measurements than because of car manufacturers trying to fool us all. Cars are increasingly optimized to get the best possible result in the official test, which gives them better marketing value and in many countries tax benefits, too. If and when the cars in real life are not driven in the same way than in the official tests, the results are something completely different. The official test cycle should be updated to better match the way the cars are actually driven, IMHO. PS - Jamboo, where are you going?! Your not abandonning us completely, are you?

I had a good experience the other day, too. I filled the tank on my way home. It was really slippery so I had to drive extra carefully the remaining 25 miles or so. When I got home, the tank AVG showed 5.5 (51.4 MPG). Now, the driving was gentle but the conditions were less than optimal which should have shown in the consumption. I think my mileage is actually improving when the car is getting closer to 15000 miles. Getting about 48 MPG regularly, ~90 % highway and A-roads and ~10 % urban.

I have not had a single negative surprise with mine. Very happy, naturally.

If the mileage is all you care for, then go for Audi or BMW. While I'm happy with the 45+ MPG that I can get from my 220d Sport (about 90 % extra urban), I'm pretty sure the Germans would give me 50+. Maybe even 55.

Pheew! The price is about the same here in Finland. In euros, that is... No wonder some of you guys seem so agitated on the poor mileage! If I were only getting around 30 MPG and would have to pay that much for the fuel... Well, I'd be broke!

These are the rev limits for me, too. Well, the Sport is okay on 4th from about 1400 and fifth will work from 1500. This is due to the shorter overall gearing. The funny thing is that on 6th gear my Sport requires at least 1700 RPM, so no difference there between normal and Sport.

I always calculate the consumption when filling up the tank. My experience is that the computer is very accurate.

More torque than which Lexus engine? 220d has 400 Nm and the BMW's 2.0d only 350 Nm. Can't comment on the actual feeling of torque though, since I still haven't managed to make the effort to go for a spin with the Bavarian. I know I should. Not that I'm thinking of swapping, but rather just to keep up with the field. Current tank AVG: 5,9 litres -> 47,9 MPG. Me happy. Could I get 53-55 MPG with BMW? Frankly, I don't care that much. The price difference (Lexus vs. BMW) is huge with all the extras I want, and with that pile of money I can buy a lot of fuel.

This 220d bashing in here has gone too far, IMHO. To say that the mileage isn't the best in its class, is okay. To say that the 250 auto is much smoother, is okay. To say that automatic transmission would complement the diesel, is okay. To say that the car is a lemon that has nothing going for it, is most definitely not okay. I have driven the Audis, BMW's and Mercs many times, and none of these have a 4-cylinder diesel pulling as smoothly as my Lexus (the new BMW 320d 177 hp might, but that one I haven't tried yet). When the Lex was brand new, the flat spot at the bottom end was worse than with the rivals, but now with 10k+ on the clock, it's practically unnoticeable. Comparing the 220d to 250 auto, the 250 wins in just about every aspect except for the cost (both purchasing and owning). Comparing the 220d to the 4-cylinder diesels from Audi, BMW and Merc, I would say the 220d wins in smoothness and power, but loses in mileage. If your 220d is as bad as some of you guys are saying, you have every right to be mad at your dealer: Your car is not running right. It could be and should be a real pleasure to drive, believe me. But please, try to stay objective. There are good 220d's out there. What exactly is causing this huge variation in opinions, is beyond me.

The problem is that you can't buy a Lexus with a German diesel... I'm still getting 45+ with 220d Sport, even when the conditions are really bad (it's a real winter up here). I have NEVER had the mileage drop below 41 MPG, not even temporarily. Now, I'm sure I could get 50+ from an Audi or a BMW with a diesel, but that's not enough to push me away from my Lexus. The economy isn't the best part of 220d, but if you modify your driving style, you can get tolerable mileage. That is on highway, at least. Urban driving is even more demanding because of the excess weight. So if your driving is mostly urban, look elsewhere.

The German Auto Bild did a group test of Alfa Romeo 159 2.4 JTDM, Audi A4 2.0 TDI (the old model), BMW 320d (the 163bhp version), Lexus IS 220d Sport and Mercedes-Benz C 220 CDI Avantgarde (new model). Alfa was the heaviest (1725 kg), then Lexus (1690 kg), Mercedes (1640 kg), Audi (1540 kg) and BMW (1540 kg). So Lexus is 50 kg heavier than Mercedes and incredible 150 kg heavier than Audi and BMW!

Basically Lexus is right saying that it's normal. I'm sure it has some effect on the mileage, but most likely it's not significant. Idling in general takes so little fuel that even if it took twice as much with 1200 RPM, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

The box says what it says, because EU has decided that all car manufacturers have to tell the results of that particular consumption test. It's not the promise of the manufacturer, it is the supposedly comparable figure from the standard test. Which, in real life, is not really that useful when one is trying to choose the car with the best fuel economy.

It seems to be quite common to think that car manufacturers can claim the consumption figures as they please. This, of course, is not the case. The test is carried out by an independent laboratory. That is to say that every single car will obtain the claimed figures, if it is driven in the same fashion as with the test cycle. It could be argued whether or not this test cycle is descriptive of everyday driving, but even so the blame is not on cars not reaching the claimed numbers, it's on the imperfect test. Besides, I for one am getting better-than-claimed mileage from my 220d Sport. Not because my car is more economical than the officially tested one, but because my driving style is nothing like the official test cycle.

The Euro 5 standard has been a moving target, not sure if the 220d meets the final draft. Be that as it may, it has been the cleanest diesel on the market for the last two years. The engines that have just been introduced (such as the BMW 177bhp) are of course manufactured using the most modern technology, which gives them some advantage over the 220d. I wouldn't count on the competitors' Euro 5 diesels being similar with 220d in terms of performance/fuel economy: they will be better, and with two more years of developing, they should! On the matter of engine braking, you are correct. When you have at least ~1500 RPM in gear and your foot is off the gas, the fuel consumption is zero. Somewhere below that RPM the engine will start injecting fuel again to prevent the engine from stalling. Still, engine braking is indeed braking. Rolling on in neutral is better for the MPG. If you need to slow down faster, engine braking is the most economical way. I use the actual brakes only to bring the car to a complete stop and in sudden situations.

I believe Matus meant that the Lex is a heavy car for its size. This is of course bad for the fuel economy, but there are situations where it can be used to save fuel. The car rolls extremely well: when you put it in neutral and just let it go freely, it sometimes feels like it will never come to a halt. With the Lex the driver has to anticipate situations early on to get the most out of this feature. On some situations (especially on empty roads) I put the gear in neutral almost half a mile before taking a turn. Your RPM range seems OK, but on smaller gears you can use lower RPM. My Sport version is pulling relatively well with third gear from about 1200 RPM and with fourth gear from 1500 RPM. The sixth gear really needs about 2000 rounds for not to make excessive noise.