Linas.P

Don't get me wrong LS400 reliability was "something else".. however, based on Lexus track record and later models (most of which had a lot of electrical systems) I don't see any reason why LC500 wouldn't be just as good 20 years later as is LS400 nowadays. It might be right or might be wrong prediction, but there is nothing to suggest there are any issues with "lasting ability" and that is true for all cars made by Lexus to the day (less IS220d).

I personally cannot complain about either LS500 or LC500, or F-cars, RX is quite nice car, GS450h was great. However, that is very niche - most of the cars sold are NX, CT, IS (I believe in this order as well) and more basic trim levels are not that "Premium". Adjusted for the times we are living in now, you probably right LS400 was unrivalled luxury back then. @Ben01 what exactly makes Mercedes A-Class worse then CT? At least you can get A45 which is actually quite serious performance car, or from new shape model A250 and A250-4matic are certainly well above CT league. I guess my only issue with Mercedes or any German car is that everything is optional and the difference between basic model and fully loaded one is literally like different car, day and night from completely basic box to completely luxury car. BTW - when we say Germans "mass produce cars", Lexus mass produce cars as well - it is just UK where Lexus is niche - in states they sell more then BMW or MB, significantly more then Audi. So it is not like Lexus is hand built or something...

Agree.... however I think Lexus following very same path like Mercedes. In 1989 LS400 was epitome of luxury, quality and examples to this days shows exactly that. However several Lexus models and design decisions nowadays are ... well... just "MEEHHH" - sort of clear indicator Lexus is simply rolling on the past brand image and monetising it. Luckily there are still cars which represents Lexus as Premium brand, but majority of mainstream models in my opinion are on the trend of just using the brand image and selling Toyotas under Lexus badge.

Just thought it is my chance to dig dig dig... just in case any 300h owners has forgotten! 😄

It is how I would define it and I agree with you, but that is subjective. That is where my disappointment with RC/IS300h came from, it is still well built and reliable, but performance is just a joke when compared to other premium cars, as well 6-Speakers poverty system does not below in any Lexus car. However, that is not how many 300h owners sees it.. and I have caused quite a backlash for pointing that out. As such I tend to think, that nowadays Premium(or Luxury) cars are more about brand image (as described by @Ben01) then it is about actual features you are getting e.g. well spec'ed Golf will be objectively way more luxury then CT, yet WV is not premium and Lexus is?! I can go more into subjective features which makes modern car more or less premium for me ... sort of red tapes where car is not premium if it doesn't have it - the car must be RWD with longitudinally mounted engine, I do not consider any car with inline-4 or FWD layout to be Premium (many would disagree - I heard it is something to do with how FWD cars "pushes from the back"). Other things - has to have leather seats and other premium materials (Alcantra doesn't count) e.g. if it has wood, then it must be real wood, if it has CF then it has to be real CF etc., has to have all adjustment electric, has to be faster then average compact car to 60... probably more.

And that is where IS220d spare pats comes handy regardless of some IS-F owners infatuation for me pointing this out! Those steering wheels were very affordable at some point, but later become madly expensive - I personally think they look great in IS-F. Good work!

I just thought - what if that you want some cold air to blow in your face or demist side windows? or that is worthy sacrifice for ultimate track weapon? 😄

That was wild generalisation and you right - I should have been more specific what I mean, but indeed I would not fit Toyo tyres on any car, but that is just me... I am not saying they are bad tyres and I would not fit many brands which otherwise considered reputable... again just me. Adding Conti into the mix doesn't help either.. every tyre will be very different, so maybe Conti Sport 6 on this particular size and width are as loud as Toyo T1s - that might be true and yet irrelevant. For example I always liked Dunlop Sportmaxx RT/RT2's on IS mk2 for how quiet, fuel efficient and long lasting they are, however when I got mk3 wheels, they had Dunlop Sportmaxx 050 fitted and I knew straight away I am going to hate them and indeed I do. No grip, wet or dry, hard, loud just awful awful tyres... My point all brands have good and bad tyres - some have more good then bad, some have good, but not adequately priced or bad but priced great - for me it all boils down to value for money... it is just matter of finding those. The reason behind not considering Toyo tyres - I have not find Toyo (street) tyre which I would consider satisfactory in this regard. In fact I think the same about most mid range tyres, for £10 more one can get excellent premium tyre, so why save £10 and get mid-range brand which is hit and miss.

If you just need general direction where to go i.e. London to Glasgow - yes it will show general direction. For that I don't need sat-nav I would just follow road signs, the Sat-Nav for me is only for showing traffic jams etc. so I can avoid them - obviously built in sat-nav rarely have this function and even when it does it doesn't work as good as say google maps or any maps app you can get on the phone. So that applies to all built in sat-nav - I consider them all useless. When it comes specifically to early IS mk2 sat-nav pre-2009 that as well had part-postcode entry which would take you to approximate location, whilst say iDrive on BMW from same year had full postcode entry and generally more intuitive interface. But even later IS mk2 sat-nav is in my opinion "clumsy" at best. I had 2012 version with HDD and still considered it sub-par... but don't take everything I say literally - as I would say same about latest sat-nav in RC - clumsy, unintuitive, slow, difficult to navigate and phone app would run circles around it. The point here I guess is that phone apps are so good, not that built in sat-navs that bad.

But that apples vs. oranges T1s is not CF2... I would expect T1s to be loud thought...

So far I have not heard of cat failing on IS250, but I am happy to be corrected and considering that early cars are now 13 years old I would not be that surprised. I would guess it to be bad sensor rather then bad cat. In IS250 there are 4 cats, 2 pre-cats and to cats at the bottom, so if they planning on replacing pre-cats it would be difficult job - not sure if steering rack needs to be removed, but maybe that is part of accessing manifold.

From experience with Toyo's on IS-F - no. For experience with tyres and Toyo's .... yes kind of - back in the day when I was fooling around with idea of armature drifting Toyo R888 were "a thing", but I personally don't consider them making good road tyres for price/performance perspective. Proxes CF2 in particular are ECO tyres and not performance and at £114 piece (front) are similarly priced to Nakangs and similar things - I would not put them on anything other then small family car (as below) . I would have less of an issue if they would be at least UHP type - but hey that is certainly not the worst tyres you can find fitted to performance cars on sale... My favourite brand to the day was Hit-Pis - sadly cannot share any images because google returns no results! 😄

...something like that, precise wording was more like "they are selling like hot-cakes and I am not going to lie to you, but you won't get one for test drive anytime soon. we can arrange 520d for extended test drive or you can try calling few month later"...

No particular reason, to be honest Toyo's are fine, just not the best. That coupled with cheapest of the kind refurb job somehow feels like owner was cutting on costs, or was tracking the car so that it made sense to get cheaper tyres more often, but maybe I am being over sensitive here. On any performance I would drop PSS for fast road, on more daily drivers I don't mind all kind of mid to high range UHPs.

In all fairness ... It is not that big of an issue for me, I will do with £4000 and maybe old ex-press IS-F... No. free service maybe? NO.. what about Lexus key ring? Maybe? Please? 😄 Don't have, much dealing with Volvo (certainly not after sales support), but even their sales were appalling. Asked for S90 T8 for test drive was offered D4 and the guy could not understand why that won't cut-it for me, then he said he will check if he could find one for me and never I head back from them. BMW was much more straightforward - when I said 520d won't represent 530e just been told to f******ff, at least didn't leave me waiting for several moths, I like "honesty". So if sales rolls like that - what about after sales?

My IS250 brakes squeaks as well... good to know it is performance car feature, now I can claim my car is performance car as well :DDDD

I have asked them to leave as it is, because if they fix it... then it is fixed, insurance won't cover it and any hidden problems will remain unchecked. This was pretty much just a step for me to prove that suspension needs to be looked at and it is not only the cosmetic damage.

Just did simple alignment check (to justify full suspension check) and as expected it was way out, both front wheels facing right (left toe in, right toe out) and steering angle is way out to the right beyond measurement.

Yes!... but that is the point you changed the tyres, not rocked into MOT centre and acted surprised when they said cords are visible. I completely understand that there are situations where tyres can be worn to the cords, but this is just simple thing to check before MOT.

I do have legal cover, but that only means that they "will try" to get excess back (I guess without it they won't even try), "if TP insurance going to agree" to cover it... would that be my fault I understand that is what "excess" is for, but in my opinion for non-fault accident that is not even questionable. Anyway that is not the point, I am not using my insurance for claim as I am not keen on getting into "premium" Micra... Ombudsman is more for cases where you get stupid valuation - as far as their conditions are going, they follow the contract, nothing new there. Obviously, the next question why did I sign the contract if I knew that in case of accident I pretty much going to be on my own... - that is because I don't really have choice, insurance is legal requirement and most of affordable covers will be similar. @Herbie - I guess that was my key question, does anyone know such "reputable" body shop in Essex/East London, worst case Kent? As for halfrauds - they are just across the road and they do alignment, so my guess what they they can as well tell when it is "off"... but I guess it was long shot to ask them for inspection.

That is what I thought as well, but it is not the case and this was obvious to me in many instances in the past. And in general I agree, but that is not how it works... The conditions from my insurance are as follows - pay £975 upfront before assessment OR £0 but then it will be considered as non-fault claim against my no-claims, it will take 2-3 weeks to fix it, they will provide me with compact car i.e. Nissan Micra and you will find out how much it costed to fix your car afterwards, then they will "TRY" to recover excess from TP insurance (why do you MEAN TRY!?). By the way I have car hire cover, which should provide like-for like replacement, but apparently that is only in case my car is write-off. Then it might take 3-9 month to recover excess... assuming TP insurance going to "AGREE" to pay it (how could they disAGREE?!). That doesn't satisfy me at the slightest: I want to know exact extent of damage and what they going to fix upfront I pay Lexus premium, but get Micra courtesy?! ( not actually surprised, just not acceptable) I have to pay upfront (450 voluntary excess, 450 mandatory excess, 75 "handling" fee) in non-fault accident and then wait for a while to get it reimbursed. And the whole language "try", "if they agree" etc. what is the point of legal requirement to have insurance if then TP insurance company can disagree to cover excess. Or otherwise it can be covered on non-fault claim = -1 NCB. So that is why I am not going with them. I just feel it would be immoral (never-mind fraudulent) to go some dodgy garage and get them write whatever astronomical damages on piece of paper for £30 without even properly checking! Sorry about whinging, but is there any other way to get suspension inspected myself i.e. any specialist in accident damage around East London/Essex?

Thank you both, I am kind of going trough insurance, sort of partially - I am not going to go in details how insurance is fraud nowadays... The third party liability goes via my insurance i.e. they simply informed that it is not my fault and has all details of third party (TP) in case TP would make a claim against me (long story). My damages get's claimed directly from TP insurance via solicitor (say.. claim management company), because they offer better condition then my insurance i.e. like for like courtesy car, cash settlement with option to fix anywhere I like etc. They are happy to inspect the car, but until it is proven to be not-road-worthy I would not get courtesy car 9 (~3days) and I need car at the moment - so in this case they advised me to get it inspected myself and they would provide courtesy car based on inspection from any garage (kind of dodgy I know, but trust me - not as bad as my legitimate insurance). Anyway, I don't want to claim something what isn't true against TP, but neither I want to fix suspension myself - even if that would prove to be just wheel alignment issue. Few pics just for taster 😄

After small accident (passenger wheel got hit by other car and I hit the kerb with driver side) my car now tramlines pulls to the left under braking. The question I have is how to properly identify the issue and get it documented as obviously "drivers at fault insurance" should be covering it? Solicitor looking after my case told me that in case the fault can be identified I would be supplied with another car straight away as my one would be considered undrivable. Been in few local garages i.e. Halfrauds, Kwik-fit which does the alignment, but they don't want to get involved, story goes along the lines - "we can align your wheels if you want, but we won't be checking/diagnosing/documenting any faults with drivetrain". As I understood they are simply lazy as I don't need anything fixed (they must not fix anything if I want it covered by insurance) or maybe it is liability thing if they miss anything. Anyway they advised to go to body shop with "jig" where they can check geometry... but I don't know any such shop around and even then it sounds bit like telling me to bugger-off as "jigs" are usually used to check for chassis/body geometry and not something like bent track rod or similar - any advise?

Still driving on the tire with ply/cords exposed is inexcusable, Just makes me to question maintenance of the car further 😄 I though it was something like - "cut deep enough to reach the ply or cords on inside wall"

That always baffles and infuriates me - how people can fail MOT on tyres! I understand something hidden e.g. I failed MOT for little rip in anti-roll bar drop link rubber, it is not that anti-roll bar has failed, or the link has failed, but there the rubber grommet on the link had about 5mm long crack... when changing them out I realised the rubber was fragile and you can rip it with hands, potentially they even damaged the rubber when inspecting. Anyway the links needed replacing (still original for over 180k miles), but it was kind of unfortunate and stupid to fail MOT for 5mm hole - "rubber deteriorated and does not prevent dirt from getting", could have given advisory and saved themselves time re-testing the car (... and ruining otherwise impeccable mot history). The point - that would be difficult to see and unfortunate, but valid MOT failure, failing MOT for tyres is just dumb - how can they not see and not bother to check them before MOT, especially on something like IS-F where good tyres are paramount for staying on the road!