bondms

On the few occasions that I've driven a newer IS200 than mine I've noticed the same thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with my brakes, it's just that the new ones are different. Perhaps the feel of the brake changed at the same time that brake-assist was added (around end of 2001 or start 2002)?

so - by your own calculations, driving with fogs on results in twice as much light. multiply that by all the people driving with them on. and you don't think thats blinding? mix in the idiots with badly adjusted headlights - and it can be hard to see. I have driven roads where I literally could not see pedestrians because of the volume of light coming from the cars on the other side of the road. As I have said many times on these forums - its not that YOUR foglights are blinding - its the cumulative effect of all the morons who do it that is blinding. ← I completely agree about badly adjusted headlights. They can be very dazzling. I'm not convinced that twice as much light necessarily equates to twice as blinding though. The area that the light is coming from is also doubled so no single part of your vision is actually brighter.

That sounds like a good guide. Cheers.

Yes, I've read it again and I think you're right. At least that makes some kind of sense.

Since it annoys some people and is discouraged by the Highway Code I no longer drive with my front fog lights on unless visibility is poor. I can't, however, understand why people get upset by this. The front fog lights are the same power rating as the dipped headlights and, if you drive up to a wall, you can see that they don't light up any higher than the normal dipped headlights, so they shouldn't be any more blinding. Use of rear fog lights, on the other hand, is a different story. I don't find these particularly blinding, but they do hide brake lights, which can be dangerous. Does anyone know what 100m visibility actually means? Even on a clear (i.e. fog free) night you can't see something 100m away unless it is illuminated somehow. There must be a legal definition that includes the size, colour and illumination of the benchmark object. I believe the Highway Code used to say that hazard warning lights should only be used when stationary but it has now been updated to also allow use on motorways to warn of slow moving traffic ahead. It seems that this guidance was changed to reflect what people did rather than the other way round. Perhaps the next update will allow driving with fog lights on in clear weather

I know the Highway Code isn't a statement of law, but the following might be of interest: http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/21.shtml#211 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/21.shtml#201 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/08.shtml#94 Notice that the 100m rule seems to apply more specifically to headlights rather than fog lights. The rule for fog lights appears to be more vague (i.e. when "visibility is reduced").

Was this your Lexus manual or for a different car? My manual calls them front fog lights.

Some Lexuses come with Retainagroup registration included (http://www.retainagroup.com/). They hold all sorts of details on the vehicle including codes for the keys. You could try contacting them to see if they have the code for your locking wheel nuts and, if so, you should be able to get a new key cut.

It's an insurance that's in addition to your normal insurance. It will pay the difference between what your normal insurance pays out and what your car cost when it was new. So, if your £20,000 car gets written off and your insurance pays out £17,000, the GAP insurance will pay out another £3000. GAP insurance is usually only available for fairly new cars (usually up to 3 years old I think).

This is basically matches what I said. More torque (or rather torque at lower engine speeds) makes for relaxed driving whereas high revving engines can usually produce more power (which is what you want for thrashing about). Well no. Different engine configurations can produce more torque rather than a shift in the torque peak. They can also produce flatter (but usually lower) torque curves. I was talking about engine torque which is what the torque figures actually refer to. You seem to have gearbox fixation and seem to be missing the point completel and making the same mistake as Clarkson. Also, I believe the specificaitons of the engine torque are at the engine end of the gearbox. Obviously, the gear box would change the amount of torque available at the wheels. ← Sorry, I'm not quite sure which part of my reply you are disagreeing with but I'll try and clarify my point of view. I agree that different engine configurations can produce more torque rather than just a shift in the torque peak BUT if one engine produces more torque at a particular engine speed than another then it is also producing more power at that engine speed so it's not relevant to the torque verses power argument. The reason I keep mentioning torque and power at the wheels is because that's where it's needed to produce vehicle acceleration. Since the gears affect torque at the wheels it's just as important as the torque produced by the engine. BUT My original point was that if all other things were equal, a vehicle with more power, rather than more torque, will accelerate quicker. This is similar to what Clarkson said and, if it's wrong, I would very much like a clear explanation as to why. Here's one way of looking at it (from a race drivers point of view): The peak power output of an engine is usually produced close to its maximum speed (i.e. at the red line). The peak torque output of an engine varies with engine configurations but is usually much lower than the red line. Race drivers will usually try to keep the engine speed close to the red line when accelerating. I.E. They want maximum engine power, not maximum engine torque. Here's another way of looking at it (from a Mathematical / Physics point of view): Power is a measure of work done over a period of time. Acceleration is effectively a measure of how quickly work can be done to convert the chemical energy stored in the petrol into kinetic energy of the vehicle. Clearly there is a close relationship between the two. Torque may APPEAR to be relevant if you consider the following: Acceleration = force over mass but force refers to the thrust applied to the vehicle (i.e. by the wheels not the engine). Using this information we can take the race driver example further. For maximum acceleration the engine is kept close to the red-line for maximum engine power. By selecting the lowest gear possible this power can be supplied at a speed that matches the wheels with maximum torque.

Yes. Gear ratios can have two main effects. 1- They can't increase the power output of the engine but they can convert a high speed, low torque engine output into low speed, high torque wheel output or vice-versa. 2- By having more, better placed ratios, the driver will be better able to keep the engine speed in the power band. Sort of. A 2-valve engine will generally have a maximum torque output at a lower engine speed than a similar 4-valve engine. This doesn't mean it actually has more torque, just that you don't need to spin the engine so fast to access the torque. A 4-valve engine will generally be able to produce more power than a similar 2-valve engine. This is basically matches what I said. More torque (or rather torque at lower engine speeds) makes for relaxed driving whereas high revving engines can usually produce more power (which is what you want for thrashing about). Yes, I'm sure the Stig and the the guy from Lotus are much better drivers. Also the German girl who recently drove his Jaguar S-type rather faster than he could round the Nurburgring

Power is the product of torque and speed of rotation. Acceleration is affected by both the amount of power being transferred through the wheels and the mass of the vehicle being accelerated (as well as other factors such as air resistance). There are two ways of making an engine more powerful: 1- Increase the torque it produces at a particular rpm. 2- Increase the maximum speed it can spin at (i.e. raise its rev-limit). Whether the power is produced by lots of torque at a low engine speed or lots of engine speed with a low torque has no bearing on the power or torque at the wheels since different gear ratios can increase torque at the cost of speed or vice-versa. It will however have an effect on driving style. Most "relaxed" road users would prefer driving at low engine speeds (since it's quieter and will wear the engine less) so would benefit from a higher torque. "Enthusiastic" or racing drivers, on the other hand, won't care so much about such things so can benefit more from high-revving engines.

I take it you mean the h/lights when in auto mode as the fogs DONT turn themselves off. ← When you finish your journey in fog and turn off your headlights and ignition then the fog lights are automatically turned off also. I.E. They won't come back on when you start your next journey.

It's been discussed before. This link http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...wtopic=9657&hl= includes a description of where to find the filter (left-hand side of the engine, high up, just in front of the wheel).

Yes, my IS just flashes the temperature display for a few seconds when the temperature falls to 3 degrees. You're very unlikely to see this unless you're specifically looking out for it (in which case what's the point?) IMO it would be much more useful to flash the bright orange snow or traction control lights on the dashboard for a few seconds to warn that the road might be slippery.

Interestingly, there's a stretch of dual carriageway in north Wales that has 70mph signs rather than the usual black and white national speed limit signs. This doesn't make much difference for solo cars and motorcycles, since their national speed limit is 70mph anyway, but I wonder what the implications are for cars towing trailers, goods vehicles and coaches etc. which would usually be limited to less than 70mph.

I too have always kept a record and here are my statistics: Maximum fill: 64.45 litres (equates to 5.55 litres left in tank). Maximum distance: 533.5 miles. Best consumption: 40.09 miles per gallon (yes, really - but it was VERY careful motorway driving). Average consumption over life of car so far: 34.06 miles per gallon. When I first got the car I did mixed driving and averaged 30 mpg (slightly less in winter and slightly more in summer). I now do more motorway / dual carriageway driving and normally get around 36/37 mpg. Other info. - I always use normal unleaded, I've never tried Opimax. - My warning indicator comes on when there is about 11 litres left.

Does anyone know how much these tools are, or if there is a way around it? You can get the "official" Toyota Special Service Tool (SST) from a Toyota dealer (parts department). It cost me £37.85 which is very expensive for what it is - i.e. a large socket to fit over the end of the filter. As other postings have suggested, you might be able to get a generic filter wrench or even just use your hands but be aware that some filter wrenches are designed only for removing filters (not tightening them) since they damage the filter. If you do decide the fork out the £37.85, then there's no problem getting the SST to reach up to the filter. Afterall, it's no larger than the palm of a hand.

No it's not. 35mpg works out at a theoretical 867km / 539mi for a 70 litre tank. This is realistic. I often get over 500 miles between filling up and have had 533.5 on one occasion (with over a gallon still left in the tank).

That sounds like something to be used with extreme care

I'm glad mine only opens a touch. That way, if I have bikes mounted on the tow bar I can still open the boot from within the car without it shooting up and hitting the bikes.

If driven carefully you can get pretty good fuel consumption from the IS200. I managed over 40mpg (40.09 to be exact!) a few weeks ago and last week got over 35mpg despite towing a boat for over 250 miles. I only use the air con occasionally and find that I actually get much better consumption in the Summer than the Winter. I suspect the biggest problem with the car is that it demands to be driven hard and if you give in to that demand your consumption will rise.

What a plonker I am. I came to drain out my old coolant only to discover it was actually red. It only looks blue when you view it though the window in the coolant reservoir!

There have been numerous postings on this site claiming that higher octane fuels (in particular Shell Optimax) give improved performance and/or better fuel economy. I understand that higher octane fuel is used by racing cars because it allows the use of engines with higher compression ratios which gives a more efficient burn (translating to more power and/or better economy). However, when you use a higher octane fuel in an engine designed to work with standard fuel then the compression ratio is unchanged so where does the extra power and/or economy come from? I guess it's something to do with the ECU advancing the spark timing. I know that most modern engines have a knock sensor which can allow the ECU to detect the optimal time to ignite the mixture but I don't understand why an advanced ignition with higher octane fuel is better than a retarded ignition with a lower octane fuel. Can anyone please explain this? Cheers.

If you have a master key, there must surely be a way making the immobiliser forget the missing keys? That way the missing keys will still open the door but won't start the car or disable the alarm.