Linas.P

The other option is obviously to stop for a pint in a pub.. as somebody suggested. @dutchie01 Irresponsible is to stick behind other car if you not overtaking and make long unbreakable queue which nobody but bravest/stupidest would even try to overtake. Overtaking 3 is sketchy enough and I scare s*** of me self very time, on European roads with miles of visibility and clean road-sides it is possible to overtake more, but you obviously praying god no blind ******* going to start overtaking as well without checking mirrors. I can give another example - overtaking 2 trucks (equivalent of 8-10 cars)... you come behind the truck, there is opportunity to overtake ... you start it and mid-way first truck you realise there is no gap between them. Mostly truckers are smart enough to leave that gap, but not all people are smart (sorry for breaking unfortunate news for you)... So what do you do.. brake and abandon, try to squeeze between 2 trucks? or finish overtaking? In IS250 finish overtaking is not an option, so I have to resort with first 2... especially on European roads where overtaking with British car is already not ideal... @noby76 - yes big deal, because your gap might not come-up for 150 miles.. so you can drive hoping car in front turns-off before that? And lets not talk about 10000hp cars.. makes no sense. In IS250 lets say I will have 5 opportunities in 100 miles, in RC-F 20 opportunities in 100 miles and in RC300h maybe 3 opportunities, out of them maybe 2 will be safe in IS250, 15 safe in RC-F and none safe in RC300h.

Do you think I am blind?! Yes obviously, if there is no gap - THERE IS NO GAP! Means not overtaking! Still there could be many gaps and you could not take them, because your car is too slow to take them! @Flytvr - yes that is always an issue when overtaking queue of cars, the fact that they will be at fault doesn't help either! But that is not your power putting you at risk - it is blind and ignorant people who don't check their mirrors.

Agree on this, but for the rest.. it really depends on the road. Take for example same A127 - I am sure in 80s' there was one car passing every minute, now it is more like every second. So in 80s' you would have waited for car to pass and would pull-in pretty casually straight away, because there would be no other car for another minute. Other thing.. on average speeds has increased. Statistically average speed on free-flowing motorway is 82MPH now, that is considering 70MPH legal limit... and yes you are right limits are more strictly enforced now, however even "slow" driver is doing 70MPH nowadays, whereas before most drivers would have been doing 55MPH-60MPH and few fast ones maybe 110MPH. So statistically in 80's average speed was 67MPH and spread was 55-110(maybe), now average speed is 82MPH and spread is 70-90MPH.

@noby76 It is still the same thing just the other way around. Nobody is suggesting here to make a dangerous overtake, what we are talking about - "if there is suitable opportunity" to overtake, which are scarce and never perfect in UK (again because of overgrown roads with continuous blind bends). With reasonable fast car you can overtake and get back to your lane, with slow car you will not fit in gap and either oncoming car, or the car you overtaking or both will have to slowdown to "accommodate" you, or it will be head on crash, or you will be driving behind slow car forever if you very patient. In short - you will have less suitable opportunities with slow car.. Overtaking math is very simple - you have 10s gap, can you go 30-70-30 in that 10s or not?! That is all it is... If you have faster car then you have added safety, that if you misjudge the gap you can still make it in 8s, whereas with slow car you will be ditching it mid-way... You will get more opportunities with faster car, because you will need less time to do it safely, if there is no gap.. then obviously you will not be able to do it with any car. Same goes for "slotting back in" - with slow car you might only be able to overtake 2 out of 4 cars before your time runs out, with faster car you will be able to overtake all 4 cars or more at once. Obviously, the problem is that slower drivers often drive close to the car they are unable to overtake and ten makes it impossible for faster drivers to do it either... that is very annoying - you either overtake or back-off! That is the issue I have with IS250 - I am confident enough take opportunities to overtake 1,2 maybe 3 cars, but it is nowhere fast enough to overtake like 7, certainly there are no such road in UK with log enough visibility to do it safely.

Could be... in which case we will still see it being on sale for another 18 months.. Until RC-Fs going to reach £25k and it will be traded to other dealership and still sold at £24k

With IS220d.. that would not be an issue at all.. and not because it is more fuel efficient, but because it would have blown head gasket and would be stripped for parts on driveway... to support all those IS-F out there. Only 200 remains so we should treasure them! More seriously, it doesn't matter how efficient is your car, eventually you will be in same situation... if not leaving that garage, then it would be another one 100miles further..

I said - "on my books", which means it is my opinion. 7.3s is about average nowadays, it is faster then my IS250, so I would have had same issue there. I was able to just about to join traffic without causing any dangerous situation there and with anything slower then that (ehemmm RC300h...) I would have had to wait longer... I don't need to say I am not very patient... so you see where it is going. When you learned to drive with Sierra and when Carltons were around... were the roads as busy as they are now? were people driving as fast as they are now? didn't people expect you to be slower considering that all cars back then were much slower to accelerate? That is why you see pensioners driving like some zombies from another world - because they still driving like they used to in 60's, but they don't fit in modern traffic and are outright dangerous for themselves and others. In short - the times has changed, the way we drive have changed and the requirements for what is considered reasonable acceleration have to change as well.

Of course they did... Probably even less. Because realistic value of that car is £23-24k, so they probably paid even less then 20k. The reason it is priced so high, is to inflate potential discount - "sir I have very very special deal for you, only today and only because I am in good mood and my manager is not around, I will make it £24k, that is £6k-off and I will add this extended warranty for half a price, you will not get such deal ever again!".

I don't see Lexus trying to raise their profile at all, at least not in UK. Sorry to repeat myself, but there is too wide gap in their line-up to properly promote proper F car. They need to make F as a pinnacle of the brand progression, now the disconnect between IS300h and GS-F and RC300h and RC-F is so huge, that RC-F acts more like separate independent brand (F-Marque) then extension of Lexus. The brand progression starts from small car, say CT200h... but CT200h is boring as hell, great reliable car, but has no values except of being metal box taking you from a to b. It is great if somebody is lucky enough to get IS200 or maybe IS250 as as first car... they might hang onto the brand if they value reliability, however from there they have nowhere to go, no logical "upgrade". In US obviously that is IS/RC350.. in UK that mid-tier model does not exist and going all the way to RC-F or GS-F is not natural progression at all. As such, by the time people in UK would get to the point where they would consider RC-F as natural next step, they usually would have left Lexus brand for something else... In the end people buying F cars are seasoned petrolhead who have tried everything and just decided to "give it a try".. which means it will never sell in high number and there is lack of exposure and appreciation for the cars. To summarise, F would be much more recognised if Lexus would provide interesting entry-level cars (CT200t anyone?), and reasonable progression via mid-tier (IS/RC350) to attract and keep clients who cares about driving dynamics.

@dutchie01 - I see 0-60 as simply yard stick to determine 30-70 reserve, with some exceptions as discussed, but still good measure. As for safely handling 500hp car, it is more of knowing your car limits and more importantly your own limits a a driver. 500hp doesn't make car less safe - that is fact, but there always going to be some mental racers on public roads or simply people who misjudged limitations or multiple unlucky circumstances. That said, I don't think car needs 500hp, nor 0-60 in 4.5s (event thought the less is always better).. I consider sub 6s 0-60 as acceptable in most circumstances and anything over 8s 0-60 outright dangerous. As for patience - less 30-70 reserve you have should directly correlate with the amount of patience. As such not patient driver in slow car will be most dangerous one. @Womble72 - yes as I said most people anticipate and change the lane to give some space to join (If possible during traffic). People with slower car then 7.3s (which is still very very slow on my books) would simply pull in dangerously slow and cut-off drivers on motorway making them to slowdown or quickly change lanes. That is dangerous and one should not simply bank on other people slowing down for their slow cars, by the way that would be straight failure on driving test... still remember as I did my test only 13 years ago. By the rules you should match the speed before joining the road and avoid causing dangerous situation (braking, changing lanes) - that is known as "careless driving" and is punishable offence.

And even if it would be, the differences are so minor I don't even see the point to pay extra penny, never mind £7000 for it.

It is just practical situation I have encountered many times in Scotland an Wales.... basically anywhere on A roads when you get stuck behind slow vehicle. It is leading question... sort of to determine what type of driver you are. My point - you are saying it is irrelevant, but I guess it is only irrelevant as long as it is reasonable and as log as you can overtake safely. Other thing - people keep saying they never need to go from 0-60 in 5 seconds... but 0-60 is just a measure to compare the cars and as well the measure to give you some indication how well the car will accelerate for overtaking, which is practical and important (but there are sort of drivers who never overtake). I agree - it would be better if they state 40-60 time instead, but equally I fully understand that there are too many variables to tell rolling start times, hence 0-60 times are provided. Going back to practical situations, today I was pulling out of petrol station on A127... it is 70MPH road and exit from petrol station has no slip road, furthermore it is downhill and visibility about 100 meters, that means you have ~3s to reach 70MPH without cutting-off other car. Obviously, most of the cars change to the second lane there to give you space, or you can wait for somebody to turn into petrol station, or you can wait for truck, because trucks will be doing 60 and you can see them from further away, but otherwise it is busy road and you might be waiting there forever to pull-in. I was in BMW with 7.3s 0-60 and waited for 1.5min and that was already properly scary, anything slower would be just unacceptable. @doog442 yes... that is most likely what would happen... hence I summarise - the most dangerous drivers are the slow ones, because they force everyone to do suicidal overtakes. Driving at speed limit is not that difficult.. The worst ones are Joes who slow down to 30 in slightest turn and then when you start overtaking in straight they start accelerating as well! With powerful enough car it is pretty simple, find the little straight patch and overtake, but with some slower car it becomes really sketchy in UK..

Question for you... Imagine situation - you on A road, nice and smooth, speed limit is national (so 60).. in front of you 2 caravans from Netherlands doing ~40, but in the slightest bends slowing down to 30... As common in UK, roads are overgrown, all bends are blind, in straight you have "safety" islands to prevent you from (safely) overtaking and the best bet you ever have is to find semi-blind, semi-straight and floor it to 80-90MPH because you don't want to find out what is behind the bend after the straight. would you: a) drive 100 miles behind them at ~35MPH? b) you make sketchy overtake on semi-blind straight? c) you are doing 30-40 yourself... so don't care... b) your are the caravaneer from Netherlands..

Ok... then I guess case is solved... still annoying!

Maybe limits being 20MPH too low for any given situation?

Agreed... now way it can sell for £30k, when RC-Fs are £32k... As for desirability... i don't think they lack desirability, but they need to be priced accordingly to sell. I know it is almost the same thing from the other end, but what I mean - people likes them and would like to have them, but would not pay as much as for similar C63 or M3.

That would be great explanation, but that wasn't the case a year ago, first RC300h started appearing in RC-F category probably this spring and since then I see increasing number of these cars. At first it was one RC300h F-sport in particular and I though some numpty didn't pay attention and list it that way, but then more started appearing (mostly F-sports), but now there are even Luxury added. Some time ago it was the case as well for say BMW M-sport being listed as M.. with clear intent to show somebody looking for say M3 that 335 M-sport can be had for half the price and bank on M brand. However, when it comes to RC... RC300h cost the same as year older RC-F... so there isn't really any saving, nor RC300h is even comparable to RC-F (as M3 would be to 335).

I would agree, but then they would need to put RC-Fs in RC300h model, not vise versa e.g. it would be an option for somebody looking at RC300h which rarely ever have ML to see that they can either have RC300h 2017 completely basic with poverty audio for £35k or fully loaded 2015 RC-F with few more miles... and then some people may go for RC-F i.e. equipment vs. low miles.

But that is different.. IS200t doesn't have it's own model... thought I woudl be more worried by grouping it with IS200d, then IS200. Same for IS300h for some reason, but RC-F and RC300h have separate categories. I wish it would be autotrader, but knowing how it works I know that is the seller who chooses the model.... certainly don't see how they can "mistakenly" choose RC300h for RC-F... Again I think it is because they are trying to expose same car to different customers, but in my opinion it works to their disadvantage...

... and it is so much better to open sunroof then it is to open windows for any situation. It is almost compromised way of having convertible .. still gives you a little bit of wind in hair and option to lift the hand in the wind... I don't know there is something special about the car with sunroof for me.

But does it? When the cover is closed yes... agreed, because whole mechanism takes space, but when cover is open it gives at least 30mm extra headroom over the car without sunroof. As I mentioned previously (as I am probably one of "odd few") sunroof for me is only needed for more light and added "feeling" of space, for me it doesn't even need to open, so where possible I would opt for panoramic one or simply glass roof. Or maybe that is to do with 80's cos I wasn't even born back then 😄

Not sure I agree, can it be considered as your personal perspective or you claim it is a fact? I am rather tall and I prefer cars with sunroof, as well if you open the blind/cover there should actually be more space. In the back yes I agree... but who cares? As well this week 2 new cars were added, giving more choice over mostly boring grey IS-Fs: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201808259845165?model=IS F&postcode=ba11rj&radius=1501&advertising-location=at_cars&make=LEXUS&onesearchad=New&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=Used&sort=sponsored&page=1 https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201706096286859?model=IS F&postcode=ba11rj&radius=1501&advertising-location=at_cars&make=LEXUS&onesearchad=New&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=Used&sort=sponsored&page=1 https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201806067213776?model=IS F&postcode=ba11rj&radius=1501&advertising-location=at_cars&make=LEXUS&onesearchad=New&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=Used&sort=sponsored&page=1

You right, I think we have reached consensus that at least windscreen was the same... Thought, I would get IS220d if I would be in that game of making my own V8. As for London traffic, you right - hence I say, I have no justifications, but money wise there is no difference or RC-F actually works out better considering it would depreciate less then RC300h.... and extra power would not hurt.. hopefully.. @Martin F - I agree, hence I said (they should know better), however considering how much RC300h are incorrectly listed I think there is some agenda behind it. It cannot just administrative mistake 20 times in a row, there must be something in it.

on 17inch wheels - yes, width was 225/245. I might be wrong, but I tend to use word "profile" for sidewall thickness, in which case it is 45 for both.

Theoretically... Generally, I am interested in coupe, be that Lexus or other... as such RC is clearly an option... I cannot justify RC-F, but at the same time fuel is minor expense and RC-F comes with better options then RC300h F-sport e.g. RC300h rarely has ML, whereas it is "standard" on RC-F. This makes it many times easier to find the car with ML+sunroof, which would be extremely rare option combo on RC300h, then you get ACC/PCS which is not an option on RC300h (pre-2018). And with RC-Fs going for say £30-35k it is really no brainier to go for RC300h unless it has ML+ sunroof and it is at least £10k cheaper (which it clearly isn't). In short RC-F is much better value for money and actually less likely to depreciate either... All dependent on finding right car win right colour with right options and for right money...all usual stuff.