fjcfarrar

Unless they are changing the oil for a different type because what was originally supplied causes a problem; I would be a bit suspicious of possible smoke & mirrors. Just fresh oil is unlikely to "cure" gearbox faults. In many cars it is in for life.

The presence of a Cat is part of the over-riding Condition & Use Regulations where a failure would possibly mean the emission test would not even be carried out because the car could be considered as unfit for the MOT to procede. Do you imagine that when Legislation insisted that Cats were mandatorily fitted by ALL manufacturers to ALL cars, that any Tom, Di*k or Harry could take them off if they felt like it - just because many cars without Cats could pass standard emission tests? Given that, who other than the MOT tester is going to police it? A Cat is part of the basic essential requirements for cars - just like windscreens without significant damage or tints, airbags, functional speedos etc. but more environmental in nature than safety-related. The Cat is supposed to take care of conditions outside the scope of limited emission tests possible at the MOT. Agreed a removed Cat may not always be obvious, but when it is, deliberately ignoring it is taking a tester's discretion a bit far. It is just this sort of issue that makes the MOT Tester's job much more complex and difficult than it appears with a minefield of seemingly conflicting legislation. I'm not going to take this any further except to say that keeping a Cat ensures remaining within the law (assuming emissions etc. are also OK): removing it is at least questionable. Is it worth the risk? If you want a definitive answer, write to VOSA with a direct question about the legality of using a car with the Cat removed. i have asked the boy that comes round to check us from vosa(phoned him today just to put my mind at ease) his answer if it passes the emissions you have no need to check the cats their if it fails thats when you end up looking but even then it doesnt fail on the cat missing(as said no option on the computer for this)it fails on the readings them selfs...... as i have said i see no point in removing the cat as modern cats arent too restrictive and any gains you will not even notice but condeming it to be illegal it wrong also as i have said only some cars will get through the emissions with the cat off...... I wasn't going to take this further but 1993 - 2009: Catalytic Convertors fitted MUST be replaced with suitable types. From 13 Aug 2009, on cars produced after 1st March 2001, Catalytic Converters can ONLY be replaced by type-approved versions of the original converter. I know it is a bit pickey, but neither includes getting rid of them with fines up to £5000 for doing so.

The IS220D is not a bad car, but if you are used to petrol cars you will quickly become aware that in terms of refined drive, despite enormous advances, the diesel is 20 years behind petrol engines and the IS220D has only 4 cylinders - this is the penalty you have to pay for economy. The best of the breed remains the IS250 auto, but superb though it is, the diesel is sadly a bit cheaper to run. I was being a bit kind-hearted about the IS220D. Driving one after an IS 250 Auto is deeply unpleasant even when you get used to the diesel's gear ratios which are wrong for every situation (although better on the sport). The drive on my 1980 Rover 2600 SDI - a car with many remarkable shortcomings but similar performance (and no toys at all) - was so much more refined than an IS220D that it was in a different league. The SDI diesel was appalling beyond belief, and vividly demonstrates the major progress in diesels since. If you need to do a lot of miles, so must have the best economy, there is sadly no Lexus alternative. But if you could afford the extra IS 250 Auto costs, they sure are worth it!

The IS220D is not a bad car, but if you are used to petrol cars you will quickly become aware that in terms of refined drive, despite enormous advances, the diesel is 20 years behind petrol engines and the IS220D has only 4 cylinders - this is the penalty you have to pay for economy. The best of the breed remains the IS250 auto, but superb though it is, the diesel is sadly a bit cheaper to run.

I think it's definately going to be worth phoning them up to make sure they undestand that it's all factory fitted. Failing that I have 14 days to cancel the policy so this weekend will be one of joyous insurance shopping! Unfortunately ANYTHING fitted to the car that does not come as bog-standard for that model is a modification as far as Insurance Companies are concerned whether factory-fitted or not. Some even want to know it is metallic paint although most work it out from the colour (ie Silver can only be metallic etc). Many "mods" do not increase premiums, but companies who have pared down their basic prices will add increases at the slightest opportunity.

The presence of a Cat is part of the over-riding Condition & Use Regulations where a failure would possibly mean the emission test would not even be carried out because the car could be considered as unfit for the MOT to procede. Do you imagine that when Legislation insisted that Cats were mandatorily fitted by ALL manufacturers to ALL cars, that any Tom, Di*k or Harry could take them off if they felt like it - just because many cars without Cats could pass standard emission tests? Given that, who other than the MOT tester is going to police it? A Cat is part of the basic essential requirements for cars - just like windscreens without significant damage or tints, airbags, functional speedos etc. but more environmental in nature than safety-related. The Cat is supposed to take care of conditions outside the scope of limited emission tests possible at the MOT. Agreed a removed Cat may not always be obvious, but when it is, deliberately ignoring it is taking a tester's discretion a bit far. It is just this sort of issue that makes the MOT Tester's job much more complex and difficult than it appears with a minefield of seemingly conflicting legislation. I'm not going to take this any further except to say that keeping a Cat ensures remaining within the law (assuming emissions etc. are also OK): removing it is at least questionable. Is it worth the risk? If you want a definitive answer, write to VOSA with a direct question about the legality of using a car with the Cat removed.

The Law requires that vehicles manufactured after ?? (date I can't remember, but mid 90's) must be fitted with a Catalytic Convertor and if original equipment before that date must be maintained in effective condition. Perhaps you could describe an MOT tester as at least a bit slack if he didn't notice one was missing during the manadatory inspection. It is well known that Cats can reduce efficiency because of flow restrictions etc, but by 1999 (first IS 200s) improved cat designs and better ECU control meant that any reduction is marginal - detectable with measuring equipment but not when driving - certainly not worth fitting an empty shell or risking failure at a properly conducted MOT. Losses in the OEM Cat with high performance mods can become significant. The solution to comply with Law is to fit a Cat desigened for higher flow rates etc. - or alternatively Decat & no road use/an accomodating MOT Tester.

The new design is for F models only and follows on from the LFA dials. The deletion of AFS lights is only because with the DRL there is simply not enough room in the light unit to fit both in. I like the new "clean" look and particularly the wheel-mounted Sport button. But not convinced by prioritising the Rev Counter by size on a car which takes charge of revs even in Manual. The rev counter is pretty but largely without purpose; so a big speedo is preferrable. I do not believe the lack-of-space excuse for deleting AFS. DRL LEDs are tiny, and the AFS mechanism is sort of external to the light assembly, so no space isssue. Agree with the comments, except putting the Sports button on the wheel is a bit questionable as it's not something you would normally be constantly changing, unlike the radar distance setting which is now placed in a similar position to where the Sport rocker switch used to be. Would prefer an option of default sports mode, but on the wheel is a better place for it to avoid accidentally turning off traction control(the switch next to it) when you feel for the existing sports rocker because neither are visible when driving. Maybe its just me but I never change the radar distance from the max setting.

Before doing anything rash, have a quick look at the post from MSC under IS200 engine & transmission "Manual/auto advice". He is replacing his stuffed engine with one from an IS200 Auto into his manual car & perhaps you could come to an arrangement with him over the auto box left over from this.

For future ref: Link to workshop manual is www.bahamutcars.com - Click through to IS200 info.

True or not, with keyless entry versions, just press the button on the door-handle to lock which saves fumbling for the fob, and this can't happen.

Just rely on your own good taste. Personally I think totally debadged, blank grilles look wrong - as if the "L" is missing rather than deliberately removed. Nothing wrong in discretely showing the make. The same with the back where too much empty space is left with total debadging.

TANGO SAID: Andy, thanks for that. Out of curiousity I put in my IS250 details and got 'license not due', but when I did the same with the IS-F registration I got 'unlicensed' . After contacting DVLA they confirmed they had no record of tax, even though I have a current tax disc. The disc shows £405.00 paid for 6 months duty, which again is most odd and hopefully not correct. Best guess by DVLA is that the Post Office cocked up when the Lexus dealership got the tax that was on the car when I bought it. Whatever, if I had been pulled by plod I would have had some awkward questions to answer. Surprised I haven't as I've been driving the car since May this year and have gone past enough NPR cameras . Now with DVLA to sort out. REPLY Tango - My commiserations and good luck - I have had problems in the past with DVLA errors (wrong model, engine type & colour of car) and over three years they failed to sort it out. Out of curiosity, I checked their site recently and after 10 years it is still about - they now show correct model and colour but say it is a diesel when it is petrol, so successive owners must have been confused. In the 1960's also had a Triumph 2000 where DVLA simultaneously issued the same Reg No to a Vauxhall Cresta bizarrely miles away in Manchester which they acknowledged as their fault - only resolved when the Cresta got written off!

I doubt there is an MOT tester slack enough to pass the car with no Cat. To detect any minimal improvement in performance produced by removing it; you will need to get a tattoo up your neck in an oriental language you don't understand and/or have a vivid imagination - although the car could be slightly louder while you drive around breaking the law by taking it out. People have successfully removed Cat elements using the same tools as used previously to remove their brains.

The new design is for F models only and follows on from the LFA dials. The deletion of AFS lights is only because with the DRL there is simply not enough room in the light unit to fit both in. I like the new "clean" look and particularly the wheel-mounted Sport button. But not convinced by prioritising the Rev Counter by size on a car which takes charge of revs even in Manual. The rev counter is pretty but largely without purpose; so a big speedo is preferrable. I do not believe the lack-of-space excuse for deleting AFS. DRL LEDs are tiny, and the AFS mechanism is sort of external to the light assembly, so no space isssue.

In my opinion losing the adaptive front lighting system and gaining Audi daytime running lights is a step backwards. 2011 versions: First came across adaptive headlights in the Citroen DS - which didn't seem to actually improve anything, and for me doesn't in the ISF - a pointless novelty; but it appears odd & unnecessary to delete it just to add a few LED running lights. Useful enhancements are suggested for suspension & some drivers will like the LSD although in the past I have found them in other marques to relatively break more easily. Good to see technical rather than just cosmetic upgrades - and also really glad that nothing is major enough to make me feel I need to get a new one! A suggestion I never thought of before would be an owners' Laptop Interface or screen display listing of all User Settings - allowing straightforward changes to defaults rather than the current absurd and unlikely timed button-sequences.

They can probably be saved assuming they move freely. The internal connections from the rivets are probably the cause. Use a multimeter to check continuity from each. Conductive paint from RS components can solve most of the problems - but be warned it takes 24 Hrs to fully dry and appears not to have worked until then.

I am curious. What would you replace the shark's fin antenna with? Do you prefer something like the IS 200 type? All the "hidden" antennae are very much less effective at capturing signals, and DAB needs better, more consistent signals to work at all (like I get no DAB reception at all at home without a big external antenna in mid-Surrey) - something better and even more conspicuous is needed to work well.

Tints on just the rear half always did look silly and are now really quaint & old-fashioned. To solve your problem just repeat over and over again the mantra "Tinting is for Tw*ts, then do the sensible thing - get shot of them!

I heard a couple of people with it on have actually gone back to Lexus and asked them to disable it because they didnt like it at all. Fairly stupid people then - because you can select it not to be adaptive from the steering wheel.

Not a wise move. Avoid an accident because you could find yourself uninsured which at the worst could lead to criminal charges.

I applaud all your mods except 8000k fogs which will give you high scatter and very much worse forward vision in fog than filament bulbs. Similarly because of the characterstics of the eye and the colour temperature of reflected road surfaces, signs and surroundings, your 6000 headlamps will give you poorer forward vision but appear brighter to cars coming the other way, perhaps dazzling - than the original 4300k HIDs which were chosen for these reasons after a good deal of research. The fogs are mainly to have a better colour match with the HIDs and we rarely get to use fogs here anyway. Most of the time you get pulled over if you use fogs when you are not supposed to. In regards to the 6000k bulbs, yes you are correct in the sense that the higher the kelvin rating the lower the visibility. But it's a very slight difference. I've compared the two side by side and the difference is very minimal yet the colour on the 6k is much nicer. In regards to dazzling, the 6000k do not dazzle anyone i've tested this and from my research i've figured out that lexus have actually aimed the projectors quite low on the IS and many people outside europe do not like the low aim and have posted DIY guides on how to adjust the aim. If the aim is adjusted, then maybe it might become dazzling but with the stock aim, the light is very sharp and no dazzle at all :) Nevertheless, the human eye is adapted to work best at lowish levels (and over its dynamic range, using headlights places vision at this low end), to colour temperatures equivalent to reflected moonlight which is around 3950k - because it is after all sunlight reflected and selectively filtered by the atmosphere. Light reflected from a 6000k source is some way down the eye's sensitivity curve because it does not occur naturally, and at low levels, the eye has no need to respond to it. Although direct dazzling is also reduced by the same factor, due to scattered transmission through normal air moisture shifting colour temperature towards yellow, apparent dazzling is increased. At the same time your ability to see the road ahead is decreased by the reduced sensitivity of the eye. All I am saying is that a modification that reduces the functionality of headlights by even a fairly small amount compared with not doing the mod is not exactly a prudent move.....Not so very different from paying out good money for a mod to make a car go slower and use more fuel! Your cosmetic mods are superb, and I look forward to more at your very high standard.

I would. An expensive Body-shop in this area would charge £500 or less for a first-class, guaranteed job - and what else can you buy for reasonable money that is going please you as much as what you have got....It would look smart for now, and when you eventually sell, although it might not up the price; it will be easier to shift.

I applaud all your mods except 8000k fogs which will give you high scatter and very much worse forward vision in fog than filament bulbs. Similarly because of the characterstics of the eye and the colour temperature of reflected road surfaces, signs and surroundings, your 6000 headlamps will give you poorer forward vision but appear brighter to cars coming the other way, perhaps dazzling - than the original 4300k HIDs which were chosen for these reasons after a good deal of research.

I think yours is better. Lexus seem to have discovered a retro 1980's Music Centre look with theirs which is going to look grubby with a bit of use.