Linas.P

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.

I have noted (not so recently), that dealers keeps adding RC300h into RC-F category. It is clearly not an accidental mistake as they keep doing it, neither it is confusion with F and F-Sport (as well it is Lexus dealers themselves, so they should know better). It is slightly annoying (can be solved by setting engine size), but I am just wondering what is reason behind it? Clearly, putting the car in wrong category makes it less visible, not more! Currently, there are 11 RC-Fs (3 listing for new cars) and 20 RC300h listed as RC-Fs. It would almost seem logical to do opposite, put RC-F in RC300h listing, because clearly RC300h has more traffic going trough and maybe being able to see that you can get RC-F cheaper then RC300h would maybe make it easier to sell.. perhaps maybe... but listing RC300h as RC-F clearly adds no value to anyone. Any ideas?

I agree - prevent from hitting not to fit a freaking bomb behind your bonnet after you hit them. I don't think my personal opinion matters here, but I am with @st4 I am paying my money for the car to protect ME and MY family first and foremost. I would not pay a single penny for pedestrian protection, BUT if that can put me in danger... then it is unacceptable on whole new level! Anyone with SRS knowledge? Is it possible that pedestrian protection fault in ECU would prevent airbags working in such situation? Clearly it is impossible that not a single airbag worked on that Toyota CH-R!

Yep, that hid is going to die soon - strangely enough mine died first on the right side as well, wheels maybe for comfort 👍 Gear knob looking like a child between LS mk2 and GS mk2... but more realistically, one of these:

I know what you mean, I didn't realise that IS mk2 has higher position before getting into BMW with manual seats, obviously ventilation, heating and electrical control units takes space and seat cannot go down any more. I am personally, ok with that - I don't need to use sun-blind as much as the roof covers it mostly, but after driving BMW for some time and getting back to the Lexus I felt like my seating position was way-up! The rule in terms of head space is (and that is by the way safety thing) - you should be able to put your fist between roof and your head, if fist fits with little bit of wiggle room then it is fine (even though I understand not most comfortable). If it doesn't then it is actually unsafe, because in accident you would hit the roof with your head. The only solution is to play with steering wheel and seat retraction i.e. retract seat and pull the steering towards you. Obviously, that is until you change the seat.

Wow... now IS200d starts to show same issues as IS220d... not a big surprise, but I though revised IS200d was more resilient to the faults.

As some of you might know, many new cars nowadays have pedestrian safety systems. That is mostly bonnet struts with explosives (similar principle as seat belts "pre-pensioners"). The idea is that bonnet shoots up-up to slow down pedestrian hitting windscreen and makes angle less sharp reducing injuries to both hips and neck + bonnet has more deformation in it further reducing injuries. Obvious issue here is cost - system is not cheap (£800-£1200+ per car) and car repairs after it deploys will be astronomical ~£5000+ (I know I sound clinical... "but it is human life versus some cash and dumb machine... blah blah"). I can see rationale behind it, however my main question here is - does it compromise driver and passengers safety or not? If not, we can just moan that it is extra cost, but if it does then I is seriously controversial. Secondly, can passenger safety fault in SRS "E"CU actually stop other airbags from deploying? Here are few lines of for further thought: You hit the deer @70MPH it deploys pedestrian safety and in result weakens your bonnet hinges, which then hits tour windscreen, block your view and results in more serious crash. You hit the deer @70MPH it deploys pedestrian safety, which then registers fault in SRS CU , then you hit the ditch and roll several times. Because pedestrian safety was deployed SRS airbags gets disabled and does not go off when you roll... you or your passenger die! The examples above from real life - 3 weeks old 2018 Toyota CH-R (Lexus UX) with 2000 miles on the clock hit the deer, then crashed into the ditch with multiple-rolls - front passenger died, not a single airbag worked. It is still being investigated, but initial theory - after crashing with deer fault code was logged into the SRS CU which disabled the airbags before the car is fixed and code cleared, when subsequently car rolled multiple times, not a single airbag worked. I am sceptical if working airbags would have saved the life anyway, but that not a single one worked is "somewhat" distressing. Here is what is left of the car: