Linas.P

OK... I see what you mean - yes it does have codes of works carried out, still the level of details are nowhere near what you would see on proforma invoice and health-check you would normally get during the service. Not to mention some of the codes are sometimes difficult to understand.

Yes I am sure it would.. however the dust caps are for preventing dust and dirt to get in and now you going to use copper grease ... which arguably is worse for the valve then dust. I think lithium greats is lightly better for application (lesser evil of 2) 🙂 ohhh what people wouldn't do for shiny dustcaps..

Yes.. I have forgotten IS300h runs square on 17" (IS250 is staggered even on 17" 225 vs 245). However, I believe IS300h F-Sport on 18" would still have higher pressure in the rear (again probably because of staggered wheels 8 vs 8.5 and tyres 225 vs. 255).

I have had Dunlop Sportmaxx RT most of the time on my car, in fact still have part worn set on my old 17" wheels after replacement for 18". And never had issue with them - if anything I would recommend them as quiet and fuel efficient tyres, with very good grip. Obviously, issue is that in UK we have outdated laws and legal limits is 70MPH... I do some aggressive cornering, but that would have been 40-70MPH, not over 70MPH. If I ever dare to go faster it is mostly straight line on the motorway... so might explain why never discovered any issues. Though thinking about it - I have maxed out car few times on autobahn ~135MPH sill never had any issues. The air pressure in the rear should not be the same - I cannot say for sure what should it be on IS300h, but on most RWD cars it is few PSI higher e.g. IS250 are 35F and 38R... Even then I still run higher pressures on Sportmaxx RT as otherwise they tend to wear outside (as under-inflated) so for 17" I woudl run something like 38-40 and if I would be planning to do high speed European motorways maybe 40-42.

On the my lexus website?

... yes but that makes total sense. They replace smaller (or say less premium) FWD car with bigger FWD car + hybrid upgrade and sells it cheaper then before. If I would be Avensis owner now looking to buy another Avensis I would be very happy about it. As well it makes sense for Toyota itself - Camry is probably one of the best selling cars of all time (maybe just after Corolla, Golf and Beatle), it is strong on hybrid sales as well. Avensis was critically acclaimed car, but hardly ever massive sales success or market leader, it is mostly European model as well which had no hybrid version. So options they had were to develop brand new platform for Avensis hybrid from scratch or simply replace it by existing model, which is already hybrid is better value for money and actually cheaper to manufacture due to the economies of scale. I do agree that this is related in the way Toyota/Lexus trying to optimise their line-up and employ lean manufacturing where possible to increase profitability. Bet whereas Avensis replacement by Camry makes total sense for everyone, replacement of GS with ES is very disappointing.

A month ago we had to use dremel tool to cut out similar caps off my mates Q7. They had literally welded themselves on... obviously some damage was caused to valve stands, but that was the only option to fill the tires before long trip.

That is correct - you need code from V5C to confirm it. Just to manage you expectations - when you access you service history it will be only dates with service type e.g. minor service or service codes. It won't have details of the service like you woudl see on invoice.

yep been there for over the 3 months now, thought it does have TVD and sunroof as well. At first it was private sale for £29500, then current dealer tried to flip it for £31500, but month ago realised it won't work and dropped it back to £29500 and later to £28995. I would actually consider it myself, but I like Black/Red combination of colours and not Blue/White... I reckon price can be further negotiated down due to mileage.

I found it funny when they link the one for £28500 in their review 😄 even though arguably the one for £28995 is much better buy having TVD and Sunroof.

That is why I call them commies (communists) - for them one size fits all. Personal needs, preference or personality in itself is not welcome - especially where they have to return on infrastructure. Motorists contribute £36bn a year only from direct taxation and duties and barely gets ~4bn/year of spending. Even then very little of £4bn is spent on actually improving the roads as large part is subsidies for public transport company stakeholders. No to improve public transport, but basically to improve profitability and return on investment - you might ask wtf?! but that is exactly the case e.g. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/subsidy_for_arriva vs. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3066527/Bus-train-operator-Arriva-sees-profit-accelerate-annual-sales-hit-3-3bn.html and that is Arriva (Deutsche Bahn) alone!!!! And there are multiple franchises ruining multiple routes. In short government subsidised private company which is making profit anyway, so the stakeholders can have better returns. Arriva made ~£100-300mln each year between 2003-2010 and received over £2bn of government subsidies on top of that (London alone), during the same period bus tickets price rose from ~£0.50 to £1.20 - this is bloody fraud in plain sight... Quite clearly that money could have been to improve appalling congestion, improve the roads, finance car scrapping and environmentally friendly car purchase schemes etc. - yet that is not a problem, problem is motorists as always.

With government being so "anti-motorists" commies it might be deliberate and I would not be surprised (I know that is again conspiracy theory from me). So they will "miss" few perfectly compliant cars which are just making. Some I will challenge them and win, you going to challenge them, @mk_lon did... but statistically probably 70-80% of drivers won't bother, won't understand and just pay-up few times and then change cars. Even if we going to contact biggest news corps which are mostly "anti-car" as well, even if it going to become well known public fact still 20-30% of ignorant people not going to realise. So by making such small "mistake" city going to make billions in ULEZ charges and more billions in illegal PCNs etc. There always going to be people who won't bother (including several of my friends). I happened so many times I lost count e.g. my mate comes over and says he got PCN from some private company or for some contravention on road he did not commit, I quickly check and it is clearly illegal, easy to challenge with basic knowledge of rules and law (basically what you can simple google). I tell them that and they still go on and pay-up.. basically saying: "I am not going to waste whole day arguing it and I have too many worries in my life to care- for me it is better to pay-up £60 and get 2 extra hours of work, then start argument..." end of story. There are a lot of people like that.. so with this thing will be the same. Basically, gains by such mistake will be enormous and risk is tiny, if anything they might need to refund few drivers who cares to challenge them. Likelihood of somebody having evidence of it being deliberate and challenging them in court via class lawsuit is so minute is almost irrelevant. Even then, if they pay say 50 million to 100k affected drivers as compensation that will be teardrop in the sea in comparison with false fees they going to collect in mean time. Not to mentioned that biggest part of any class action will go as fine to some government agency, so TFL and London city going to pay fine to the government - still taxation. Again this is just conspiracy theory, but I have long lost trust in "sincere" mistakes when it comes co government. They simply have underlying agenda to demonise motorists and will pull any dirty trick on us to achieve their goal... obviously making some money in process.

...but was that movement pushing from the rear or pulling from the front... or was it pushing from the front? (at this point I don't even know if this is still funny or what..)

First of all that's is not what you have said - you said rear wheels aid in acceleration and that is arguably quite different from caring momentum in motion. Secondly even if that is true, why should I be butt hurt about it, neither I drive FWD, nor planning to have one - so it is kind of irrelevant for me. Lastly, it probably wouldn't be too much to ask you where it was "confirmed" and by whom.

You asked? Then it is no point, because what you asked is to convert FWD to AWD to prove rear wheels assist in acceleration. I don't need lab for that - I already know that AWD uses are 4 wheels to accelerate.

Or any phone with GPS for that matter. Actually, any phone would do.. (even without GPS) as police can ask network providers to triangulate on phone location - however in UK they are unlikely to go as far for "mere" car related crime.

Except that book might be relevant to somebody... this thread isn't (except of realms of flat earth if that is your thing). edit: I mean it was at first, but then stopped being so when we started discussing what kind of dark matter from parallel universe power rear wheels on FWD cars.

I know it is waste of my time, but because I am that sort of the guy who likes arguing for the sake of it (and clearly has too much time to spare).. here we go: 1. before hiring the lab we need to identify and fix issues in your methodology, because otherwise we will get flawed results (due to the flawed methodology). lets see where you gone wrong with your proposed methodology first and why it doesn't make sense: 4 independent rollers are ok, but they should not be electronic or in any way driven or powered, can have brakes for practical reasons (maybe fail safe) - fine. Rollers represents the road surface and the roads are not powered right? We want to recreate realistic conditions and to have possibility to measure it. If rollers are powered, then they does not act as a road - they represent drive train, hence if you power only front rollers it is FWD, only rear rollers on RWD and all rollers on AWD. Because we are not trying to convert FWD car to AWD or RWD, we not going to power the rollers you don't compare it against anything, hence you cannot conclude anything from that, you need "base line" measure, hence we will introduce identical car for comparison. vehicle has to power wheels by it's own engine power, that is because that is how it works in reality. Roads doesn't power our vehicles, engines and drive trains does. Rollers doesn't have suspension, hence cannot squat etc. hence is why rollers cannot power the wheels. Right? Finally, we not going to do braking test as that is completely different from acceleration and we will need different methodology to test it (if you interested we can go troughs that as well). Your claim was - rear wheels assists car during acceleration in pushing motion, so that is only thing we testing. OK? 2. lets create realistic testing steps for our imaginable test: lab with 2 sets of 4 independent rollers measured by sensors (with brakes.. just because). we have 2 sets of rollers and 2 identical FWD vehicles on both we strap both vehicle on the rollers, applying realistic tension equivalent to vehicle weight and average road surface grip - so that wheels can loose traction if if torque gets greater then grip. for baseline we will use 1st vehicle as it is, 2nd one will have solid concrete non-rotating stands, solid on the rollers - not rotating at all. we power both vehicle and accelerate from stand still to predetermined speed or to the maximum speed. we measure the torque generated in the rollers to determine whenever rear wheels assist acceleration in any shape or form or not. 3. the results (my guess): we start accelerating, both vehicles squats a little bit and we get little bit of skipping on the rollers as torque is greater then grip and weight transfer to the rear reducing grip further. front set of rollers starts spinning on both cars rear set of rollers just stays as they are, 1st vehicle because there are no power delivered to them, 2nd because rear wheels are solid concrete stands we measure the torque generated and it is same in both cases: 100% in front wheels, 0% in rears. = conclusion, rear wheels does not assist in front wheel drive car acceleration. > to further improve our baseline we can add and remove many variables e.g. x. we can further prove the point, by mechanically connecting front rollers to the rear rollers on 1st vehicle. The vehicle will generate same torque to the front wheels, but will accelerate slower due to now having to push not only mass of drive train, front wheels, front rollers, but as well connecting shaft, rear rollers and rear wheels. So if anything - rear wheels are just dead weight which require energy to power. They do not assist acceleration at all, but resist acceleration - equivalent to their mass. (we almost created AWD contraption here + 4 rollers, except on AWD we would accelerate quicker as added weight would have been counterbalance by added grip). y. we can now replace rear wheels with very heavy solid lead disks, running same test we will find that FWD car will generate same torque, but will accelerate slower, because heavier wheels will have more weight to resist acceleration. That only proves rear wheel acts as a dead mass and only in fashion of resisting the acceleration, not aiding it in any way. z. we can replace rear suspension, to take it from equation to see if rear suspension has any role. We replace rear springs and any moving parts for solid concrete stands. Basically we bolt rear towers to concrete stands. This does not allow car to squat or move at all. Result more likely to be less skip on front rollers, because solid concrete minimises weight transfer from front to rear and car will accelerate quicker. Meaning that squatting and weight transfer actually doesn't help acceleration, quite opposite it reduces grip in front. Now when you have decent methodology to start with and reasonable baseline to compare it with, you can certainly go and prove or disprove it in the lab. Or we can imagine one:

And even then only during deceleration/braking. The initial argument was that rear wheels will push FWD car during acceleration and not braking. I think this nailed it: If we live on "flat earth" then there is potential for FWD cars "pushing" by the invisible force in rear wheels. @noby76 - that is exactly sorts of idea we discussing here. Imagine explaining for somebody with basic education that "earth is flat" and imagine their face. That is most of our faces when you say that FWD car pushes with rear wheels... it is equivalent to conspiracy theory (and pretty dumb one for that) - do you understand ?

No it won't, it is not luxurious or comfortable - it is more small/sports coupe, in which case I would rather go for Nissan 350/370z. Manual gearbox was nowhere on my list either, maybe DSG equivalent or fast auto/seq. Just to be clear I am not looking for track weapon, I do most of my driving on congested London roads. However, BMW 640 does interest me, BMW 4-series maybe (but it is very poorly equipped). @First_Lexus - again same argument, 300h was quick enough for your taste. I have nothing against it, you obviously decide for yourself - but to suggest it is enough for everyone is a bit much. Neither it justifies not having faster option, nor it compares with German rivals. And I completely agree that Lexus is level above Germans in terms of equipment and quality, but it doesn't compare well in terms of speed. Take for example BMW530e 6.1s 0-60 and suddenly calling Lexus 8.9s quick enough sounds unjustified, not only that - BMW as well has 20Miles pure EV range and overall better MPG. Now if you make GS300h PHEV which does 0-60 in ~6s it would be completely different story. I guess my point is - car doesn't need to be slow to be economical, luxurious, comfortable or well built and certainly making slow cars is not the compromise Lexus needs, they have all best tech and large parent company to bank-roll it. It seems just lazy for me... lack of interest to compete, to prove worthy... is pretty much as you described - "oh.. it is quick enough, so we end here as long as people buys it... oh they don't buy it anymore, I guess we close the shop then". That is not how established brands got there, not by doing "just enough", but by continuously improving, by continuously competing. Lexus approach is just lazy - slap universal engine into all cars and call it a day, I don't think it respect me as a customer, hence I cannot justify respecting and promoting the brand. If BMW would have used same lazy philosophy, we would have had BMW 520i for most of 90's, then 525i for 1998-2003, from where we would have had only 530d until ~2016 and then only 530e. With such philosophy BMW would have joined Lexus in competition for niche maker long ago. Respect has to be earned and Lexus has done nothing since release of GS mk3 and release of IS mk2 to earn it. I mean .. ok there was LF-A, IS-F as sort of showcase models, but that hasn't translated into any useful mainstream model... they kept me stuck in 250 and now further retarded to 300h - as a consumers I am not getting much from Lexus. 450h was legacy from 2005 and now they are dismantling even that, so for me it is just becoming harder and harder to justify respect and loyalty to the brand.

I have tried it.... but here we are at risk of starting whole new Armageddon... It is faster, but "just"... gear changes are quicker, but it never seems to find the right one and it sounds pathetic, there is as well flat spot on power in low rpm. If you just cruising then yes.. there are no difference, but if you rev it or launch it from stand still and compare it like for like then it is terrible. Is IS200t 2014 better car then IS250 2008 ~ yes in some aspects, is it worth me paying £18k versus £4-6k for IS250 - no never, because value you get is just barely better (and that it is ignoring the fact the car is 6 years newer, so should be significantly better) and the price you pay is over 3 times higher. In short for me IS200t is not an option - it is not sufficiently faster, not sufficiently better equipped, significantly less refined and significantly more expensive. Even if we say they cost the same mk2 IS250 and mk3 IS200t, I would actually choose mk2 IS250. Further I would probably take mk2 IS250 over mk3 IS250 as well, but that is more complex to justify. When I say I want more power, I don't mean I am willing to compromise on other values which I associate with Lexus e.g. refinement. So for example IS350 fits the bill perfectly, it is just as refined (tad front heavy), but it is significantly faster - yet is not IS-F, so it is still somewhat practical.. you can still use it as daily driver without much of the issues.

I don't even need to look that far - I am IS250 owner and I want to stay with Lexus, but I struggle to find something suitable. My only issue with my current IS250 is that it is tad slow, I need car which is little bit faster ~IS350 range and Lexus gives me no option, either go for even slower IS300h or unicorn rattle IS200t, or all the way to RC-F and GS-F.

I was about to reply, but I though picture will tell 1000 words:

It keeps on giving... I am inviting my colleges to check it out, this is almost more interesting the Fifa world cup! Especially that part where you and your mechanic frantically turns the wheels on lifted car just to realise the truth - rear weal are in no way connected to front ones! Your hands in your comparison works as substitute for driveshaft, by turning each wheel by hand you turn it into AWD, if what you saying would be true, then turning front wheels on FWD car would make rear wheels to turn as well without touching them. When you reach some speed on FWD, you are right rear wheels will carry some mass, and because they are rotating, rotating mass = torque. But that rotating mass is dead mass as it is not connected to anything - when you start braking the rear wheels will continue to rotate, when you start accelerating they will resist acceleration - they not acting in any way to support acceleration. In corner the mass shift from side to side, to prevent tyres sliding you need lateral grip, better tyres on the front will grip more then rear ones resulting in tendency of car oversteer first. The reason manufacturers recommends better tyres on the rear is because it is commonly accepted that (for inexperienced driver!) understeer is safer then oversteer. Push or pull depends where you are in regards to driving wheels, therefore FWD can only pull. If you park your FWD Accord behind my RWD IS250 and start pushing me, you car even being FWD will effectively push me, if I attach rope to your car and pull you, my car being RWD will effectively pull you. BTW... I am actually amazed we having this conversation with adult. It almost feels to me like taking toy cars in front of 2 years old to explain what pushing and pulling means.

Same here, whenever we going to have discussion with noby re: FWD vs. RWD this evidence has to be preserved. I guess that explains why Honda Accord is such a good drive - "it is because it is FWD which pushes from the rear!".