Linas.P

Those reinforced side walls makes the ride harder, which is already rather hard on R17. Depends what you take for comparison e.g. if you compare with BMW e90 - then Lexus with any tires/rims will be comfortable to drive.

Well it is quite simple - 2005-2010 cars had 177hp and were marketed as IS220d, the face-lift models 2010+ had some reliability issues addressed and the power were reduced to 148hp, as well that helped to me pollution targets. Now IS220d is already sluggish car I won't enjoy driving, IS200d is even worse. True it is more reliable, but nowhere near perfect. Generally, people have issues with these cars when doing short trips/ city driving. For motorway driving they are fine (ish). Still wouldn't recommend it. Obviously, it is hard to judge without the price, mileage etc. Maybe it is really dirty cheap.. and if you don't mind obvious shortcomings of the model then why not?

No - it is biggest mistake. Reinforced tires are for heavy loads and are much harder, hence they would have terrible hard ride. I have paid £61 per tire for SPORTMAXX RT 94? with rim protection and got fitted them in local garage for £20, so £142 in total. so I guess £135 is decent price.

Recently my radio started playing some kind of game. When I drive past the Thames-link tunnel it stops what ever is playing radio/aux/disk and displays the message "ALARM". I have non-Sat-Nav unit without screen. That only happens in the Thames-link tunnel. User manual states that this means emergency message is being broadcasted , similar to TA. However, it seems there are no ways to turn it off thought. Does anyone have seen this message before? I believe either my radio going mad or somebody is really trying to send distress signal in that tunnel (for a ~week, so might stop soon though :D).

Just my personal opinion - look a bit cheap, as well given the fact is IS220d I would look elsewhere. I personally don't like the rims - it is obvious they are quite cheap (and heavy... and "soft").

I have recently lost right rear box (apparently common issue - my car is 2008 October). I think I slightly hit it when going over the bumps and it had one week/rusted weld. It was £680+fitting for the rear section. Didn't bother to find out how much the fitting, because it was obviously was about to get absurd (really it is just 2 screws and 6 rubber holder which you can undo with hands). End up visiting local garage - they said all exhaust is a bit rusted, but nothing major. As well I have checked the part and it looked like broken rather than rusted. End-up doing bit of fudge - they welded up the rear box for £80. So far have not other problems (after ~6 month). When this going to brake, I believe I am going to order entire Aftermarket exhaust from engine to the tail-pipes somewhere from Eastern EU - have seen custom titanium exhaust in ~£700 range (£2800 it like almost half of my cars value).

Then maybe just needs alignment, apparently it is recommended to do it every 6 months. I had similar issues when my front tires were unevenly worn out. Replaced tires and done front alignment (rear was ok) an issue gone.

Quick summary: IS220d is "fine" if you not driving in the city and if you are ok with under-powered manual car. Same would be applicable to any poor diesel car (like BMW320d) except maybe they have more reliable engines. IS250 AT has excellent engine and gearbox reliability and none of the issue IS220 has. Choice is very simple - either you get SE-L with everything or SE without anything, there are no major options except of Sat-Nav with Mark-levison audio and "moon" roof. you have option of MT as well. The real consumption of IS250 AT (my personal London driving last 10k miles) - 25-30MPG in start stop urban driving, 35-40MPG in extra urban (but I do ~90MPH, by driving 75-80MPH you can get 40+ MPG).

Well I had it on my previous F-Sport and AWD. That is why I am saying "missing". What I am not missing is Nav, somehow doesn't found it any good or at least not as good as the one I had on BMW..

Are these machined aluminum pedals standards with MT or it is upgrade. Just realised they look cool! It doesn't seems to be many IS with Moonroof either - the only thing I really miss in mine.

I think one general rule here - you get what you pay for. If you want real nice IS250 AT with low miles and decent options ~£10k. If lucky you might get on for £8k-odd. For 6-7k... you will always have tradeoffs. This stands as of today - so if you read my comment in 2020 the prices will be different

I would probably just say - Standard Lexus audio system is already about as good as it gets. Well above the standard of the class (comparing with 3-series and c-class which I had in between my various IS250's). ML is nice, but I would not call it "day and night" difference if at all. There are obviously will be "fanatics" who will try to prove that that minor note or vibe made all the difference and is worth 3k, but I am not convinced. I guess the best option would be to go to Lexus pretend you interested in the car with ML and listen for yourself if it is really that different "for you" and hence worth all the struggle retrofitting.

as for cream interiour - I would be the person preferring cream over back for NEW car, but for 8 year (or possibly 11 now) it would be nearly impossible to find example with unmarked interior.

I won't believe it unless I see them in person. Good example is my car - on the paper it looked too good for the asking price, but I have knocked another £500 off when viewed it and to be honest still fee like I might have made a mistake. The reason... it basically needs respray - all car is covered is tiny stone chips and not all of them are touched up well (or at all). I won't be able to tell when passing by or even standing 2 metres away, but the car needs full respray .. there is not a single panel unmarked. I must admit, I might have missed 7k bit, but 6k was too low. As for interiour - there will always be exceptions, I stated that as general thing, additionally - personal experience. All IS'es I have seen with cream or grey interiors looked crap.

My point is that - it doesn't seems like there is huge premium when you looking for used cars. It is possible to find run down 250 MTs (or even more 220d) with ML for the price which is less than ML it self has costed when new ( I am referring to those cars listed at £2.4k :D). Nav add to the cost... maybe ML does as well, but the main thing is actually still- mileage, AT/MT and the overall condition. I don't have ML, nor Nav now, but I used to have ML in my F-Sport and, Nav in my AWD.

This... I have used and will use only aux. Previously, have used usb (as my previous IS had it), but still only listened to .mp3 songs (e.g. youtube rips). That said you could probably benefit from ML if you have large collection of great quality CDs. But if you (like many) listen to .mp3 then do not bother.

Hey. Just following other threads you made I am curious - Are you saying you found an F-Sport which was only made after 2010 in the price range of 6k? My feeling is that you refering to SR? Unless it is F-Sport 220d, but as you looking for 250 AT, I wouldn't assume that. P.S. I used to have F-Sport which had all leather interior, but I guess UK f-sports were limited to half-leather combo (mine was EU).

I am not sure ML counts in used cars - rather nice to have. But I fully agree that the list sound like ~9k ish car for me from the description. He could get MT, or high miles, or very basic for 6k. But not AT, low miles and high spec. that will never comes as low all together. What helps for this search - he doesn't want Black.. which is second most expensive colour after White. I personally paid extra to get Black with Black interior, if only mine have sunroof (or moon roof as it is called by Lexus), it would be perfect combo for me. It is just my personal opinion, but Lexus Dark Grey is rather Dirty Black. The normal Grey is so common that it is boring. I would say both comes reasonably cheaper. Second point, light colour interior for 8+ years car is bad choice. I believe it is nice to have cream when it is new, but for used cars is Back and Back only which looks reasonably fresh. Other options are only light Grey or Cream which will always have marks and stains. As well cloth interiors are manual only( or I am missing something?!)

I am not sure about a matter of fitting everything, but I can clearly state that the difference between ML and "standard" sound system is not worth any struggle. I originally had F-Sport (2012) with ML, then AWD (2010) with standard system, and when my Lexus service gave me IS Luxury as courtesy car (kind of equivalent to SE-L) with ML - I could not hear any difference at all. My current IS is non-ML (at least I assume), because there is no ML marking anywhere (but there is amp in the back?!). I guess ML systems are better if you listening at maximum level (65 on mine), but for normal (I have levels between 20-45) you will probably never hear the difference. If you finally want to have some extra sound, it will alway be easier to add sub in the boot.

It is funny, but is actually true - Dunlop is subsidiary of Goodyear. Not only they arch rivals in the market, but as well Dunlop usually have better tires for more reasonable prices (impossible to explain by any logic). Overall, Dunlop is one of the best tires "on paper". When it comes to RT vs. TT. TT are grippier tyres especially on dry, hence fuel consumption and noise. To be honest those Fuel ratings are "paper only" thing. Manufacturers put them because they have to (EU law), the real life difference is very small. Previously, I had SportMaxx (not TT/RT/GT - that is old discontinued model) with "F/G" fuel rating and recently replaced them with SportMaxx RT, which are "C" fuel rating. There were no difference whatsoever in fuel consumption... until.. I filled them with nitrogen and asked guys to increase pressure. Pressure increase made ride harder (some would say less comfortable, but I don't mind) and improved fuel consumption by probably up to 10%, especially on motorways. Same goes for noise rating. I haven't noticed any difference even though previous tyres were rated at 72dB and new ones at 67dB. Maybe if you drive with windows down you can hear the difference, but inside of Lexus IS there is no difference - I believe this is one to ignore. As for rim protection RT and TT are the same, they come with MFS (Maximum Flange Shield), which is not really kerb protection. Even though Dunlop states otherwise: "Benefits Protects expensive alloy wheels from kerbing. * Only available in select sizes" MFS is more like additional rubber barrier inside of the tire so that it would protect against potholes. As for the kerbs there is very little "skirt" which doesn't protect much. It would protect the rim if you hit the kerb straight on, but not when you scratch against it one the side when parking. Honestly, I never had any tire which had sufficient kerb protection (please let me know if you know such brand). Even the old SportMaxx had like a rubber ring around the rim edge, but kerb would burst it straight through even at low speed.. so not only you damage alloy, you as well have pieces of rubber sticking from the sides.

Maybe just that particular IS220d then... Cannot argue with that. I think the main reason I am advocating here for AT is that the it was clearly said it is for short journeys....rather than long cruises on motorway. That doesn't make 250MT bad car, nor even 220/200d (even thought for my personal preference they have too weak engine for relatively heavy car and no AT option).

I am not sure if the misunderstanding comes from my english being not good enough or something else... Let's park it here saying that the MT/AT thing is personal preference. There are cars were I prefer MT e.g. I was always astounded to see Subaru Impreza WRX with AT, or Nissan 300ZX, or Toyota Supra with AT. I personally believe, that AT cars were historically associated with expensive maintenance and bad fuel economy. As this not the case in IS250 and the car itself not being very hardcore sports car - the AT became favorite choice of many drivers. I woudl say "added luxury and comfort" at no extra cost. I think that is not very surprising, simply car doesn't have enough power in longer/steeper uphill driving at 70mph@6th gear (and in my experience 80). It starts slowing down until it reaches like 60 and very low rpm and the ride comes very uncomfortable and it makes you to change down to 5th. That actually happens to my IS250 AT, it is just that the AT box changes the gear when it thinks there is not enough torque and you don't feel anything. On manual you actually need to intercept that moment by quickly changing down before it (almost) chokes-up.

That is the best example of what I meant :D - thanks for sharing. The funny thing, there are many people who actually only drive their cars like that. And make conclusions - "DPF is crap"! so they "delete" it and continue driving this way. This is because some older cars allowed this driving "style" before DPF were invented (or enforced), hence creating "super economical diesel myth". Then you can clearly see who they are, when they pull from junction and leaves everyone in thick black smoke. It is true that it makes good MPG this way, but is so terribly smoking and polluting environment.

You are right, this is not very clear- I guess that is the problem with long posts. - Will edit it to make more sense there. I guess it depends how much you drive - if not much maybe once a month for 15 min will be enough.

Are you saying, that the gearbox itself is different in 250? (this might be the case - I have really just assumed they are the same all the time). Yes I have seen the IS250 auto box, that is what I have said - if one ever go wrong that will be huge expense - they simply don't go wrong (yet). And while they don't they actually requires less maintenance.