Linas.P

I agree, except of IS-F... it seems that buying any other high-end Lexus (bar SUVs) is pretty difficult decision, unless you planning on driving it forever (which might well be possible considering quality), but otherwise if lets say one would get LC for £66k today, 3 years later they would be in very difficult position. High-end coupe for £40k in non-seller privately, Lexus PX will be very poor value and any other PX would be even lower value... So the only option is to upgrade to another Lexus and after LC there will be not much more to upgrade to. Finally, if you can spend £66k, then you can probably spend £76k as well and get the par precisely to your specification. @C.B - still there is much depreciation in LC and I guess it is number 1 consideration for any potential buyer or current owner. As above majority of supply seems to go via Lexus and Lexus seems to try to control it artificially in a way. In some way that is good for current owners, but in other hand I guess it is always a risk - if Lexus leaves LC supply/demand for open market, the value might dwindle by half in single year.

cause it is red with black interior, it is wrong they around - should be black with red interior 😄

Are you sure about that? Or did lovely V8 sound masked it on "the way back"?

That is only diesel one? Why would she even consider diesel nowadays? 😄 I was considering Q60 myself, but as I said I just found interior ugly... as I said exterior is questionable (I personally like it), but interior is mess, a lot of bright coloured buttons and displays, they seems to prefer strip club blue and red LEDs everywhere, seats are ok - leather is quite soft and nice (thought I heard they do not last), but dashboard is really messed-up in my opinion, controls are confusing and actual buttons feels unbelievably cheap. I haven't driven one (Q60S seems promising with 3.0T and 400hp, 5.0s to 60), just sat in one for 30 min in Westfield centre playing with all gizmos. So there are a lot of toys inside, but everything poorly implemented, I would probably guess it is chinese manufactured car if all infinity badges would be removed.

Thanks... exactly.. sorry to bring terrorism again, but as I said there are more pressing issues which are not financed at all, exactly what you said - "diet, healthcare, education, environment" and kills thousands of people every week and something remote and rare like terrorism which barely anyone (in EU anyway) and we spend a lot of money for it (and not little - they say ~15.1 billion). In mean time education is pretty poor, universities expensive and leaves people with lifetime debts, healthcare is not that much underfunded as it is inefficient and environment only gets rare and useless contributions (useless in the way that money is spent, but nothing inherently changes). Going back to cancer - there isn't even any government body or research or even goverment funded institution which does anything about it! Nothing... and that is the issue which kills 38% of all people in UK. The biggest group which does anything about it is Cancer Research charity... bloody charity and they budget is only £80 millions and to be honest it isn't even very clear what they have achieved so far except of advising us what not to do (which is pretty much everything), but in terms of treatment... pretty much nothing. Now putting that in perspective, their budget is only 5% of that of mystical terrorism nonsense and comes from good will donors, not even reliable source. Obviously, this this all seems to be irrelevant for EVs, but I feel it is exactly same case here - government is pushing for EVs in their misguided attempt to tackle something which isn't even an issue instead of educating people of what the real issues are (too afraid not to be re-elected - populism politics)... And obviously car manufacturers are more then happy to plug-in... after all that is their chance to force upgrades. Like all the scrapping schemes - that is present for manufacturers, they can scrap still perfectly usable cars and sell new ones. Same here - goverment going to spend billions of our tax money, to build unnecessary infrastructure (generating billion tons of Co2 in process), going to force us to scrap perfectly usable cars (wasting a lot of material which is already made and therefore has 0 Co2 impact), replace everything with spanking new EVs (making which we will generate billion tons of Co2) and all that for ~1-2% of pollution. But they not going to do anything with real issues like over consumtion of food, 75% of which ends-up in landfills (don't forget farming is like 16% of pollution) or fast fashion, cheap toys, electron devices, whit goods etc. which doesn't last what they should and we throw them away after barely 10% of expected use (manufacturing of all that is the biggest single source of pollution 40%<). In short, even sustainable environment supporters have concluded that unless you have total "gas guzzler" or the car which is clearly polluting due to wear an tear, the most environmentally friendly way is to continue driving same car as long as possible. Good solution would be as @CallTheBall suggested - only replacing the engine when it wears out for something less polluting, but replacing entire car is more damaging then continue driving it. When it comes to cars (the 2% of the pollution problem), it would be logical to tax them only at the time of purchase as such reducing the demand for new cars, and then not taxing them at all - increasing demand for used ones. Forcing very long warranties on manufacturers e.g. 10 years, 200k miles unconditional warranty, that would result in manufacturers using higher quality components and new car prices further increasing, but equally increasing reliability, thus reducing the waste.

I am not comparing anything, if you are the one dying the last thing you care about is whenever it is because of terrorist attack or accident on the train platform. Possibility of latter is higher so if you thinking logically (I know big ask) - you should be more afraid public transport then terrorists. Yet still higher then both if you car driver or occupant, still (all 3) much lower then cancer... but the last time I checked goverment spent billions preventing terrorism and pennies preventing cancer. I think we figured out already that EV questions is not just simple matter of supply/demand and infrastructure 😄

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201809010065463?model=IS F&amp;radius=1500&amp;postcode=ba11rj&amp;advertising-location=at_cars&amp;sort=price-asc&amp;onesearchad=Used&amp;onesearchad=Nearly New&amp;onesearchad=New&amp;make=LEXUS&amp;page=1 Yep... just stumbled upon-it and went back here to check if it is the same car... they are out of their little minds.

There is a card key option, but not much cheaper.. This is for IS mk3, but similar cards were available for mk2, process would be similar for both:

Based on Risk impact assessment any pressing issue in life can be categorised by Probability vs. Impact. Terrorism is high impact but unbelievably low probability occurrence - it is more likely to become a US president (obviously if you american) then it is to die in terrorist attack. Some daily issues like earning enough to pay bills are very high probability (where it is almost guaranteed to occur), but very low impact.. and something like cancer is massive risk, because it is very likely to occur (Probability) and very likely to kill you (Impact). Obviously, I do not support terrorism but at least in UK it is far from "mass murder of innocent", more people die on public transport in London every year... Should we say then that our public transport is "mass murdering innocent people?". That would actually be more accurate description e.g. during your recent trip to London where you were glad to exchange some bodily gases with strangers on tube... at any given moment you were more likely to die from "passenger incident" then from terrorist attacks. Terrorism risks are pretty much hoax.. issue massively overblown from it's proportions. Even the terrorists themselves understand and exploits it - their goal is not to kill people, but to scare! On flip side - next time we might need to think twice before invading muslim country and killing tens of thousands innocent people there. @Comedian - obviously we need to consider that fuel efficiency and pollution are two very different things e.g. long haul flights might be much more fuel efficient then personal vehicles, but jet air-planes inherently are heavy polluters because of the way engines works. Still when is comes to travelling anything more then 500 miles plane becomes very reasonable solution and for anything over 1000 miles that is pretty much necessity (bar few exceptions).

Unbelievably difficult and expensive.. That is dealer only thing and will cost you around £300-£500 to replace. First of all you need "virgin" key (used ones cannot be reprogrammed) and then keys can be attached by dealer or certified technician for something like £180. The final price will depend on how cheaply you can get the key. I heard somebody was able to clear used key, but could not find the thread now... Still it was something like £180 for clearing the key which was covered by dealer selling the car and then £180 for programming the key with the car. @Flytvr - I know cos IS220d is the same...

Well, my experience with Mercedes is pretty limited to 2010 C350 4-Matic and few 2014-2015 E class loaners. The only thing I gathered from my ownership that material and built quality was sub-par even to say something like BMW, where material quality might not be the best, but everything joints nicely and feels solid... not so on Merc everything rattles, mine was 35k miles and buttons on stereo and passenger door were already broken... and leather ohhh leather what a terrible thing, it would be more comfortable if they would have used cardboard to cover seats, hard and slippery. Mine was Elegance (1 down from top spec. Avangarde in Europe). E-class loaners were just cheaply made, mostly new cars but just felt cheap and very basic inside. Rust on the wheel arches is not exactly reliability issue in my opinion, poor maintenance e.g. unaddressed stone chips and poor repairs most likely to be an issue. When I say 1998-2005 Mercs unreliable.. I mean they are notoriously unreliable with multiple severe problems, blowing engines, gearboxes, suspension components ... and higher class parts will be more expensive to replace.. hence you see 2003 CLs, S'es selling dirt cheap - that is because it will easily rack-up £12k bill if you go to fix it just for parts alone. the ones after that period are still unreliable, but not going to breakdown with £3000 worth of stupid part 100 metres after you buy it.

I am not sure... for me interior look very ugly in Infinity. The exterior is questionable already, bun interior is properly ugly... MB were very unreliable from late 90's ~1998-9 and ~2006-2008. The new Mercs are just simply dull, similar to BMW and Audi (Audi dullest of them all)... not really that unreliable but you must spend fortune on options or it will be very basic. If looking for used - will never find it with right options..

Indeed, that is because it is considered "safer" when car understeers instead of owersteering. Except of that there is no real reason to do it, last 2 times I have replaced tires on IS250 both times fronts were totally bald (~2mm) and rears still had 3.5mm of thread left. IS250AWD has squared set-up as well.

Yes.. or plane... Plane is still public transport, but when it is done correctly I don't have issue with it. I agree with your point that issue in public transport is the public.. that applies even to the planes - glorious high tech machines flying high in the sky, filled with stinking farting meat balls... Still you can hardly match them unless you are uber rich and can afford to fly your private plane. I think private flying eventually going to get more affordable, but for now airlines provides very reasonable service for reasonable cost. Problem with British public transport is that it is run for profit and it is monopoly... Acid, knife and jihadists are joke... In UK 143000 people die every year, 38% from cancer (that is 54000), from knife attacks maybe 100 (that is 0.06%), from jihadists on average 1 person per year in last 50 years (or 0.0006%). So it is more likely you going to slip on the platform and fall under the train, then it is for jihadist to blow himself-up in front of you. Terrorism risk is almost non-existent and it is more of Media/Government buggy men to scare everyone off the daily pressing issue with life and fixating focus on non-existent threat. Funny fact - because in UK we don't have proper infrastructure i.e. barriers on the platforms (except very few lines) the train companies have to pay additional insurance, which then they include in the price of our tickets... So basically we pay for the dangerous infrastructure insurance when we use it?!

@FTBBCVoodoo - you just being inappropriate now... ! I was very impressed with Chinese trains, but that is because public transport is suitable for communist country.. it just fits the culture there and the way it is managed there is correct for the purpose. Trains there are to provide public service and not to make profit. First class "bullet train" from Shanghai to Beijing (800miles) costs £56 and the price never changes, again because they not trying to make profit. Bloody wagon between London to Edinburgh (400 miles) from 18th century cost £300 and doesn't even have air conditioning... and takes twice as long to travel half a distance .... what are you kidding?! The best example is when bus or train from London to the airport cost more then the flight 1000 miles away to another country... I mean explain that! That is sort of seat you get in China, including slippers and dinner, coffee, tea, cakes and beer:

Americans have share of problems with driving as well... However, for me the whole argument public transport vs. driving vs. cycling is a bit pointless. All of them are just modes of transport, what people prefer goverment must enable. They collect the taxes and they should use those taxes to provide infrastructure - there is no way around it. If 70% of people prefer driving, means goverment duty is to provide infrastructure for 70% driving - people choose what they want to do, goverment is there just to facilitate it. Government can take position to advise, maybe experiment a little bit, gauge opinion, but they have no-right to dictate the terms, force anything or control majority behaviour.

Yep, double saving if we don't. Though we need more controlled way and preferably not when commuters are around. Yes you right VED just goes into same pot.. but that is where lies the issue. We all pay general taxation, you, me everyone living in UK. However, some groups are paying more e.g. motorists, smokers, drinkers. That government decides to put it in same pot is government choice and issue, not the people paying for it. Don't forget government just works for us to redistribute the money in the way we want, they have no rights to decide themselves. As such me, you, taxpayers are the ones who decide where the money should go. Here you are right, we both know that this is general taxation, but if you check majority of motorist would not know that and are paying VED in good will with assumption that this is something for the roads improvements and maintenance... general public would be outraged if they would find out only £4bn were spent from £36bn raised. Finally, none of that would be the problem if the infrastructure would be fit for purpose. Honestly, could not care less where the money comes from and where it is spent as long as roads are derivable (which they are not), secondly - not only that government double taxes motorists, government as well blames same motorist for all the problems real and imaginable... and that is where it gets ugly. So not only I am paying effectively general taxation twice... I am as well being told that I should not use the roads because the infrastructure isn't there to support me. This naturally leads into what I am saying above - "if you want to blame me for something, then don't take my money... if you took my money then make sure you spend it accordingly and shut-up!"

@Womble72 a lot of good points... with some I agree with some others I don't ... London Underground is a relic, literally piece of history - it is not suitable for public transportation.. probably more suitable as a "Museum of Transportation of 19th Century". So you are correct - it was never designed for current use and unsuitable. What needs to be done - we need choose some iconic stations and routes we want to preserve, then plant massive explosives to the rest of it and we blow-it all up, then we need to build proper modern system with realistic capacity in-design. You say it cannot be done?! Beijing and Shanghai built more metro miles in last 3 years then entire London Metro and for fraction of the cost. The public expect train every minutes... yes... why?! because it bloody costs fortune... if I would pay the fare I would expect not only the train every minute, but aswell blanket, pillow and bl****** to be included in that price. The price of London "public" (privately owned conglomerates) transport is nonsensical. Why do you think cheapest airlines always have the newest air planes? Because new infrastructure is so much cheaper to maintain. London underground in simple terms is unsustainably obsolete, hence it cost fortune to maintain and commuter have to foot the bill. No matter how good public transport people always going to moan... because people don't want to use it.. they are forced to. It is like saying "no matter how good prison is, prisoners are always going to moan"... Yes that is the perspective.. you never going to like things you are forced to use. Next point - I just disagree, I pay same VED as anyone else, why would anyone can feel entitled to tell me what type of transport I should use or not to use and when? Finally, Government collects £36bn from road users every year in direct motoring related taxes, only spend ~£4bn, but the figure includes subsidies for public transport, nonsense like cycling lanes, pavements etc. and just little bit of maintenance. In short £4bn are not really used for improvements. My point - maybe they should spend the money they collect back on the roads and make them suitable for the times....

I personally prefer the looks of current RC... This one reminds me of Toyota GT86 for some reason... Don't like new front lights, nor rear lights... @Big Rat wake me up when RC350 gets announced in UK.

I got used compressor from ebay and sent it for reconditioning and then fitted. I believe I paid something like £100 for fit and re-gas. Just go to different mechanic.

Yep... try commies China... @doog442 I am in favour of companies making money... however you cannot take communist idea of everything public and succesfully run it in capitalist for profit world. Either you are in commies country and use everything public or you in capitalist country running everything private... otherwise it is hypocrisy. Let me explain (call it manspalining) how subsidies and funding of public transport works in UK... you sell publicly owned entity (say London Bus Company)which was built in decades using public funds for nothing to private conglomerate (say Arriva), then Arriva makes profit providing essential public service and charging people who funded the company in the first place, then when you get complaints about crap service you subsidise it by pumping money into that private company (2.2bn over 10 years) which already makes millions (~300million of profit every year over last 10 years)... and you still have same crap service because all the subsidies goes into shareholders accounts in Geneva, Isle of Man and Cayman islands. Public funds can only "subsidise" publicly owned company providing public services. If company is privately owned, then it should never be publicly subsidised, it should be subsidised privately. secondly, why concept of public transport is the future? It might be your future.. not mine! What is better about it, then nice, comfortable, fast personal transport?

Divo is not available to buy yet... I doubt you going to be able to rent it to test if you can fit it in no gap. I am only talking production vehicle... It would only work if the sentence makes sense in the first place. Which I don't think it does...

What makes me think FWD civic pushes from the back? Is that you question? Iiii ammmm struggling to understand you....... @Comedian - tell my why oh why... you didn't overtake that Merc!

Who said next to no gap? Why would you overtake at all if there is next to no gap? Or you saying there would be equal opportunities to overtake with Bugatti (Chiron is the latest btw) as it is with Civic?

But... that gap is necessary here, because otherwise young lady would not really fit...