Linas.P

the motorway overtakes are not he ones which matters, you have your secure lane and you can take as long as you like for it, what matters is overtaking on A/B roads with very narrow opportunities and that is mostly 40-60MPH. Other thing, from the time you stepped on the pedal, hold long it is going to take you to actually start accelerating. One car might do 40-60 in 1.5s, but take 1s to respond, whereas other going to take 1.9s for 40-60, but only 0.1s to respond. So overall with slower, but more responsive car you can start overtaking more confidently and you don't need to speed too much to avoid head-on crash.

For me it seems almost opposite, obviously gearing comes into play ... but small volume turbo often kicks from stand still as they have low down torque (at least modern ones does) and 2.0t can take on 3.0NA, but when it comes to rolling start NA would leave turbo in dust due to more instant response and higher top-end power. Overall, this is only important if your car on the edge of being slow i.e. ~8.0s 0-60... if your car does under 5s 0-60 you would be equally fine for 40-60 or 30-70 overtaking...

For me it is just a way to compare cars similar to say EU labels on tyres, some are B, some are F, but it gives you idea what to expect. I would not say there is certain specific number, it really depends on the purpose of the car. Generally, I feel that any modern (2010+) car should be able to reach 60 in less then 8s regardless of how green, cheap, heavy or luxurious it is. However, I consider that premium cars should always be faster then economy brands to protect their status of "premium" car e.g. it is not cool when you drop £40k on RC300h and average Clio drivers can overtake you from any side they like! The acceleration should be relevant, comparable and competitive - if entry-luxury coupe averages at 6.5s for 2018 model year, then any car with 7.5 or 8.6s will be un-competitive offering. How important it is for me personally - VERY important, call it bravado, bragging rights or whatever... but I consider effortless acceleration as part of luxurious car ownership experience, additionally it is safety factor for overtaking - I reckon 6.5 or less would be sufficient for me, but 4.5 would be desirable - not sure how often I would use it, but just knowing I have that capability would make me feel safer and more relaxed.

@Bluesman it was 5 starts "*****" - how offensive can that be? I guess depends on ones imagination of what bad words can be made from 5 letter...

Does that include ones in BMW 320d thought?

are you blind? you comparing 0-60 to 0-62 figures. It probably can do 0-40 in 6s, that doesn't make it 2.4s faster then official! ... importantly, seems you do!

I like to joke about Toyota vs. Lexus owners manual - In Lexus owner manual you check what which button does and you sometimes find out something you did not know was fitted to your car, on Toyota you check what buttons you could have had and what features your car doesn't have, which obviously explains all those blank covers! 😄 Leather and Sunroof obviously depends on personal needs... we were laughing with my colleague about his wife's cars must haves... the only feature she cares about and cannot live without is rear wiper! If car doesn't have one, she refuses to drive it... that includes colleague's 911 Turbo... I was trying to make sense of it, but I could not... wives are strange animals... She would have approved Auris thought, because it has a wiper in the rear!

I checked it last time around and I stand by what I have said. 0-60 official ~8.1, real ~7.4, different of ~0.7s give or take for rounding 0-62 official 8.4, real ~7.6, difference of ~0.6s give or take for rounding Where did I said it does 0-60 under 7s or that it is over 1s or "several seconds" faster then official time? Quite clearly I said, it does not do anything under 7! Thanks for proving yourself 👍

The build quality would be pretty much on par, what wouldn't be on part - standard equipment and materials quality. I have recently driven Auris and driven several CT's and build quality is very satisfactory on Auris, I even prefer sat-nav control over weird Lexus touch-pad contraption. But say even if you opt for leather in Auris, it would not be same nice and soft Lexus Leather. @Big Rat - any info on actual blue RC-F they got in stock?

I don't see the reason why not - we have UX... and had it well before UX was available to buy, so why not ES forum...

@Ten Ninety I agree with you on that. However, Lexus/Toyota just not being consistent with their message Akio Toyoda, declared - "no more boring cars". F-Marque creation, LFA, apparently RC, new aggressive styling was suppose to be shift from understated cars to more digressive cars with better driving dynamics to appeal for younger customers... and I am not dreamed that-up - this is all coming from top management in Toyota/Lexus, somehow I cannot see any of that being delivered (except on outside to some extent, somehow lacks substance under the bonnet). On other hand - they can do both! who do they need to make sacrifice speed for comfort or vice versa. They can develop 300h into PHEV, both increasing the power and making it faster and making more fuel efficient. @Zotto first of all in UK we have car tax, maybe not as high as in other countries, but in UK we have ridiculous insurance. In short what you pay in high tax we pay in high insurance - ten fold if you young. Young people being priced out of any reasonable cars by insurance. And we have one of the slowest speed limits in the world + massive anti-drivers culture. What you did makes complete sense, but being younger I want to do exactly opposite form what they want... @doog442 wasn't worthy the response, if anyone wants they can go back to my post in mk2 sub-forum and check for themselves what I have said. As for IS200t - happy to help!

Yes... I guess I am "wrong kind" of young person. Real bas*** who dares to have values beyond looks... like quality and driving dynamics - that was really unexpected, Lexus was caught unprepared! Thanks god - there are not many of such people.. I would say sometimes you need to do right thing even if it is not the best way to exploit the market...ohhh but I forgotten Lexus is "for profit" organisation and not charity. I am really out of touch with my 18th century sentiments... sorry...

Not sure what you mean - I am not denying climate change, I am just saying that transportation (which includes ships, planes, trains, cars, trucks etc.) is just 10% of the pollution, the private cars are probably more like 1%... and we sitting here s****g bricks about 1% and doing nothing about remaining 99%. Any reasonable person would start from the biggest impact - manufacturing, then electricity generation, then farming, then heating/air conditioning and only last would look in transportation. What I am saying - our priorities are wrong! And they are wrong for a reason, this agenda is suitable for multiple interests, whereas actually making the impact would hurt these "interests".

My car is 2006, if it would be released now or in 2013 is would be s**t car - for 2006 it was ok, for £4000 it is great. Contrary, RC300h for £40k is not great - if that is how Lexus imagines what young buyers wants, then I can simply say they are wrong! Maybe they think young people are stupid and they don't understand about driving dynamics? They only want "cool" looking toy which looks "300MPH and 1000hp" when standstill and doesn't go at all? Do they get idea from riced fiestas and civics? Is that the image of young driver they have - sort of "shallow d*****bag who only cares about the looks and nothing of substance"? In which case I am offended by their view and quite reasonably unhappy... Obviously, you can say I am the one who has taken the offence and nobody cares - my problem. But then don't get surprised when I am all over the forum telling how terrible 300h is - because it is not f****** great, nor ok! It is car apparently designed to attract young buyers with the drive train designed for pensioners... I know what that is called - it is called ricer! @dutchie01 - yes I am sure, housewives are ecstatic about cute little SUV and pensioners will be more then happy with loafy the loafy face ES with acceleration of the snail.

Well you - explain, that is what you said! - "it’s because it wouldn’t sell ... despite all the evidence ...[like] fact that it’s not sold in this country." You use fact that it is "not sold" to enforce your point that "it would not sell". Do you see anything wrong here? My guess would be - because Lexus long term strategy was to castrate customer interest in their brand, by continuous poor decisions and by continuous reduction in choice... And now it would not sell because overtime there are no more people who would buy-it... maybe? However, that is not end state - they can start making decisions which actually makes sense, overtime they can reintroduce interesting models, which would reignite interest and get the customer back to the brand. I guess the final question is what types of customers they want - if they want unemployed house wifes with 3 kids, pensioners, retirees, non-engaged drivers... they doing all correctly - they are currently alienating everyone who cares about driving dynamics (F-marque exists, but it is too steep for average consumer) and who likes driving. From begging Lexus was known as "pensioners brand", however I thought they wanted to change that, to appeal to younger clientele, more driving and performance focused. If that is the case they doing it wrong, if the case is to go back to the start and continue selling retirement cars, then they are right.

Could well be back to middle ages, but it is not all doom and gloom - we still have fuel reserves for 50-100 years. As for climate change transportation contributes only 10% of pollution, so there are certainly other ways to reduce waste e.g. reduce consumerism - fast fashion, poor quality disposable goods etc. The reason we wage war against cars is because it is mutually beneficial for car manufacturers and politicians - it is easier to find buggy men and blame it for all faults then to actually fix real problems e.g. educating people against using poor quality goods, taxing them are both expensive and not economically viable. Less crap goods = less manufacturing, shrinking economy, global deflation and recession. More good quality goods with longer life = reduced consumer spending, reduced production and employment. To really understand whats what we need to look to global leverages like financial markets etc, which all works based on debt economy, inflation and synthetic economic growth.

Sounds good in theory, we will need to see actual financial figures behind it and the solution being introduced on road - I mean both charging stations and cars running on this tech. I don't want to sound pessimistic, but if it is just conceptualised now it will be at least 10 years until it hist the market.

Yes indeed it is circular... but can you not see how flawed is you statement - it doesn't sell well, because it is not available in this country and because it is not available apparently that is a fact to prove it would not sell?! What? That is catch 22... Do you think 440i sells in large numbers, even S5, C43... No! I am sure 420d outsells 440i like 30:1... But that is not the point, the point is to have full line-up because you are freaking luxury brand, so you have to at least to some extent try to tailor to costumer needs. Now here is another catch 22 argument @Ten Ninety presented - "Everyone who wanted mid-tier sports car already have C43, S5 or 440i"... well yes, that is because they didn't have an option to get RC350. That is the point - if you want to expand in the market you have to offer more choice and over time build-up client base. If Lexus would bring RC350 to UK it would take at least 2-3 years to phase in, which obviously now would be stupid when model is already 4 years old and already sales flop. Would they had it from 2014, that would be different story. Furthermore, RC350 is great car, but it isn't all that interesting... something like RC450h would have had very special and very appealing combination as good alternative to C43, S5 and 440i. What is that interesting combination - well all German cars are turbocharged which comes with pros and cons, whereas 450h would be hybrid, kind of electrically charged both with instant torque and crisp NA V6. Now I know what you thinking - if 450h would be that interesting GS450h would have sold well. Here is the deal - for large performance saloons there is totally different clientele and performance figures are much less important then for sports/luxury coupes, secondly GS450h was priced almost at M5 level which would have never worked out. Even M5 being symbol of full size performance saloon market it niche product... again something like 520d outsells M5 100s:1. Again very strange strategy - when GS mk4 was introduced the only option was pretty much 450h at very top end and GS250 at very bottom - neither of which were competitive cars 450h was priced well too high in M5 territory where it had no chances, there were no GS-F and 250 which was barely enough to power IS250 in 2005 was simply uncommunicative offer in 2012. One thing is to get GS250 now for £15k, totally different proposition was to get it new for £37k... on top of that 2012 was the year ruled by diesel cars before all the "diesel gates" so any petrol car was in disadvantage from outset. That was later partially fixed with GS300h as entry level - but as always it was too little too late. @Jamesf1 - now you say - "don't you think Lexus with all those managers and market research don't know better"? NO! they freaking don't - they whole strategy and line-up for last 10 years was one big continuous mistake.... starting with IS mk2, no 350 model, 220d had no automatic option, GS introduction was total failure without suitable entry model, nor high-end , IS mk3 introduction was failure again without any high-end model, IS-F was not replaced, IS-C was not replaced, RC introduction was failure - massive gap in the middle, low-end too low, high end-too high, no convertible (even though it was clearly intended - concept models were made etc.), completely misjudged regulatory environment and missed PHEV bandwagon... The reason Lexus is still around in UK is SUV market rocketing and they happen to be there by pure luck! They kept castrating their line-up and that is death spiral - less model you have on offer, less people gets interested in your brand, less people buy, then you reduce non-selling models and the spiral starts again. Opposite is true, you introduce new models - they might not be great sellers at first, but they bring people into brand recognition and even though specific models might not sell, people will buy something off you.

I would like to think, especially because ICEs can be converted to run on hydrogen, meaning we can reuse existing cars without needing to scrap them (which is carbon inefficient). Secondly, for me as car lover that is hope to keep some vintage, exotic, rare cars relevant.... However, hydrogen production, storage, logistics etc. are very inefficient and expensive ... sot it is compromise as anything else. hydrocarbons - cheap, easy to produce (although limited), easy distribution, storage and high power density, but dirty. electrical power - clean, cheap, but expensive and difficult to store and to distribute, but very efficient to use when done right. hydrogen - difficult to produce and not very clean, expensive , difficult to store and distribute, but has good power density if done right. As you said hydrogen makes sense in ships and planes e.g. the larger is the vehicle the easier it is to convert it.

Well... you tell us? I would be certainly one of the first in the queue to get one... I can say... maybe because they are stupid, or maybe because market is too niche to care, or maybe other reasons. Your question in itself is kind of weird - we are saying, that we don't understand why they don't do it and you asking us why they don't do it - "if only I knew..."

You need a kit called Po-40 and I assume you already have it, in that case I guess it would be best to contact the seller for instructions. I know there were few differences in terms of wiring from year to year, so it is hard to advise. Try looking at links below:

Here you make several assumptions: 100% power generation efficiency 100% energy logistics effciency 0% loses in power distribution JIT demand And those are all incorrect, we do not have 100% efficient way to produce the energy, we waste 47-58% of produced energy in networking, delivery and uneven demand. Say "clean" nuclear power stations have to consistently produce power during the night, solar panels only produce power during the day, wind power is inconsistent and the only power stations you can turn on and off at your will are the ones powered by hydrocarbons. Electric vehicles might indeed be much more efficient, but by the time they are charged, there are massive inefficiencies in power transfer lanes, charging equipment etc. This might not be accurate numbers but lets say in ICE with 30% efficiency 1l of fuel generates 100kw at the wheels, 1l of fuel produces 150Kw of electric energy at the station, but 10% is lost in "step-up" transformation, 5% is lost over the lines another 15% is lost on "step-down", 10% is lost in charging process (AC/DC conversion), 8% are lost in battery storage, 4% are lost power delivery between batteries and engines and 2% in engines themselves and we might get even less actual energy produced from same amount of fuel ~91Kw(150-15-7-19-9-4-2-1=91)... and all that assuming JIT demand which it isn't. Now again these are not necessary real numbers (real loses can be easily found on the internet), I might have overstated/understated loses in certain steps - it is just an example. My point - with centralised electricity production as we have now it might not be even nearly as beneficial to switch to electric vehicles, that is even before we take in consideration lifetime carbon emissions from manufacturing. So to really get advantages of electric vehicles we either need to significantly improve centralised network or we need to decentralise the electricity production (something like small thermal-energy reactor in every home)... and we are very very far from this. The original Fisker Karma actually nailed it with on board generator (decentralised energy production), on board generator was nowhere near as green or efficient as large power plant, but the nature of "on-demand", on board generation without delivery loses made a lot of sense. So being environmentally friendly it is not as simple as switching to electric vehicles...

I actually disagree that there is issue of not having non-hybrid for RX, however 200t for the car as large and as heavy as RX is joke... so when we say "oh 200t was not-hybrid and didn't sell, so lack of non-hybrid version is not valid argument" we need to understand that not any non-hybrid engine. Take for example RC350 - yes that would be interesting, but would RC150t would be interesting - no certainly not, it would be joke as RX200t is joke. @rayaans - I never said that IS250 can do 0-60 in under 7s, neither I ever claimed that opinions disagreeing with that are irrelevant and nobody cares about them. You pretend to represent collective mind, I only ever represent myself - here is big difference. Every time somebody claims 300h is good enough, I will come and say it is sluggish, because it is. If I use same terminology as you do, then - "stop repeating same old crap in very thread that 300h is transparently good enough and ok!" . If you exhausted just bugger off to Tesla forum.

Time spent on this forum was more worthy then the movie - the only one way of knowing was to watch it, but now I can say it for certain. Now I have to make sure I can get it back some off it - expect more 300h digging and more inappropriate 220d part jokes to be made soon!

That is key... I wound even say charge time is more important then the range. If there is reasonable recharge network, I guess even 200miles can suffice for the begging before we get to higher capacity, but anything longer then 1-2, maybe 5 minutes max to recharge is deal breaker. Second thing is degradation of batteries e.g. Tesla supercharger which is still relatively slow in comparison with pumping dinosaur juice into the tank... actually damages the batteries. You get more range and better lifetime, by not using supercharging. In petrol tank... doesn't matter, tank capacity doesn't change every time you refill. Finally, there are a lot of bogus science on environmental benefit - tail-pipe emission is 0, correct! But energy doesn't make itself... if we assume maybe 100k electric cars whizzing around London (big cities is where they are most beneficial) and they all charge from otherwise wasted energy at night - then yes there is benefit. But if we thinking to eventually replace all the car with electric ones, electricity production will simply going to increase and the pollution going to form power plants instead of the cars on the roads - no long term benefit there...