LenT

Sounds like you were! Have you thought of moving?

Well if you thought a ‘Wash Mitt’ beauty contest was a laughing matter, I fear for your safety when you learn about ‘Drying Towels’ and ‘Applicator Pads’! Actually the laser-cut reference was my error. These are films that Lexus applied to my IS250 in front of the rear wheels to help prevent road chip damage. They had slightly discoloured with age and the replacements actually produced by my chap came from mechanical cutters that were computer programmed. They were part of a Wrapping Process - which is not a typo for a musical event. In fact, if you change your mind about a ceramic finish, you can opt to have your entire vehicle film coated. And that’s not a laughing matter, cost wise!

Well at least you've made me feel slightly better about it! 🙂 The strange part, Linus, is that the car was sold by a Lexus dealer and regularly serviced by them for the previous owner. I bought it off the same dealer who then regularly serviced it. So the puzzle is: when did someone replace (only!) three metal dust caps with plastic ones? I did come across a comment that Lexus had replaced the metal caps with plastic for this very reason. I do recall in the 'old days' that a smear of Vaseline round the valve was applied to prevent this very same problem. So it did have other uses, then.

Well I can't really comment on what another Company might do. So let me just detail what my guy did. Here's an outline of the four day's work. Multiple stage wash removing potentially damaging material, using Aenso shampoos. Engine bay cleaned and degreased. Wheels removed, cleaned both sides. Wheel wells degreased and decontaminated. Chemical and claybar decontamination. Paintwork assessment. A 2-stage paintwork enhancement. Interior detailing. Glass cleaned and polished inside and out. Multiple HD photos of detailing work. Also: Application of Modesta BC-04 & Modesta BC-05 Glass coatings to bodywork to give a coating life of 8-10 years. Application of baked-on ceramic protection for the wheels. Application of a hydrophobic coating to the glass. Removal and replacement of new laser-cut clear films on body panels. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation to just say that it involves two buckets! 🙂 The idea is that you have one bucket solely with the shampoo you're using. And a second bucket solely for rinsing your 'wash mitt' (Oh yes, you have to have at least one of them!) The reason is to isolate the water that comes off the car so that there is no possibility of any grit transferring back onto the paint surface. Plenty of car detailers eager to demonstrate the process on YouTube! I have to warn you, Graeme, that the price you pay for the undoubted benefits of ceramic coating is that the simple process of car washing now becomes a significant opportunity to spend more time with your car - and to buy more stuff!

As understand it, this Company also claims that they can do a full detailing at ‘your home or work’. Presumably this is all in one day? Don’t really understand how that happens, but it’s very Impressive. My local detailer in Brackley took four days at his premises. Whatever, I would recommend it if you can afford the investment. My Lexus IS is white, so it looks really shiny - as opposed to the striking results that Chris has obtained. Deep colours such as reds and blues definitely respond more dramatically to ceramic coating. Nevertheless, my objective was to achieve a better protected, longer lasting and easier to maintain paint surface - which I have. Only drawback, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, is that I now have to hand wash at home with two buckets. No more trips to the car wash!

I think that’s a bargain. Replacing just one valve cap on my Lexus cost me £75. To be fair, it did involve replacing the entire TPMS valve on one wheel where a helpful lad had snapped the valve off while trying to remove the metal dust cap that had corroded onto the valve stem! Yes, not a problem I had ever encountered before, but apparently why the other Lexus branded dust caps were now plastic. Probably something most of you already know. But something worth checking if you don’t.

You should be able to remove all doubt - if indeed you have any - by checking with a magnet.

So if it's done, say 170K in 23 years, that's only about 7,400 miles a year (I think)! Well, as many will tell you, that's nothing for a Lexus. Sounds like you could have a little gem on your hands. Here's hoping anyway.

I thought I'd point out that some pictures would be useful too! I also presume it's been on a SORN. I suppose it also depends on whether you fancy keeping it once it's back on the road and how much of the necessary work you can do yourself. And I think you rightly mention the belt and battery. It's also likely that all the fluids should be replaced. Personally I wouldn't even chance turning it over until you were sure that nothing had seized, unlikely though that may be. On the other hand, if it was a runner in 2017, not much will have deteriorated in a Lexus since then. Which is why this site exists!

1998 Grey Lexus LS 400 4.0 4dr for sale for £4250 (autotrader.co.uk) Here's one example of that year and model. Obviously it all depends on condition and how much you are prepared to invest. But I would guess there's many here who would be horrified at the idea of it going for scrap!! Might also be useful to look up some of the original reviews to get some idea of how well it was regarded.

I admire your optimism Charlotte. Apart from not coming back on his original post, Mark’s last post seems to have been in 2013. Perhaps he found an easier way to solve the problem - he sold it! If the solutions already suggested haven’t resolved it, then I’d be inclined to find an auto electrician and spend the money rather than lose any more time. I see that you have taken it to a garage, but was it a Lexus dealer? Sometimes these kind of faults can be model specific. In any case, auto electricians are specialists and may be more experienced at fault diagnosis than the average garage mechanic.

I would suggest that ALL modern oils are more than adequate IF the recommended oil AND filter changes are followed. Even the own-label brands will invariably have a sound base oil and a perfectly adequate additive package. The problem faced by blenders such as Amsoil is that technically their fully synthetic products may well be able to maintain their performance levels for the 20K - 25K miles they state - and they are not alone in that. But getting the vehicle makers to agree is another matter. I recall the problems faced by BP when they introduced LongLife oil and recommended 12K mile changes, I think it was. One of the reasons why a Full Service History is so valuable is that it confirms that these scheduled changes have been followed. Of course, this is an enthusiasts website so I would expect nothing less. 😊

As Mark has just posted, this is a common problem. This is a possible solution that you haven’t mentioned, but of course you may have already tried. Namely, spray the sensor with WD-40. If you have a can with the spray tube to really focus the jet, then so much the better. If the problem isn’t caused by damage to the sensor, or an electrical fault, then it may be due to water- often introduced during car washes, This does sometimes produce this kind of intermittent fault. Anyway, it’s just about the cheapest and simplest possible fix - so nothing to lose!

Is there nothing you can take for that?

I’ve always thought of Philip as what we used to call ‘a good egg’. Seeing again the plaudits and affection of those who served with him in the Navy, and worked with him across an extraordinary range of activities, is humbling indeed. And yet I am saddened to see examples of the ‘tall poppy syndrome’ make an appearance. Members of the Umbrage Brigade who seek to find offence where none existed. To witness the genuine grieving expressed by so many members of the Commonwealth who had enjoyed his visits, puts the lie to hints of racist gaffes. He was a man of his times who overcame a troubled childhood to achieve in life what few can even aspire to. There may be someone who can step into his shoes, but no-one comes to mind.

My guess would be that having invested time, effort and no doubt some skill, into your refurbs, you’ve ended up with a greater sense of involvement and satisfaction with the end product then if you’d just taken delivery new. Also if you go back far enough, you can do most work with not much more than, say, a good socket set, screwdrivers, spanners, a couple of Mole grips, ramps and, if you’re really fussy, a torque wrench. I lift a modern car bonnet and it takes me a moment to just locate the dipstick! It would be interesting to know how many LOC members are refurbers and buy-newers. In my case, a two-year old IS250 suited me perfectly- and was no longer available new anyway. Obviously how much you’re prepared to spend on a car is a factor. Anyone buying new, even after negotiations, knows that a ‘trouble free time’ is at the expense of a loss the moment you drive off the forecourt. I regularly get invites from the Lexus dealer, (today, for example), presumably to sell the IS250 back to them so that I can replace it with something new. Problem is, there isn’t a new model that would suit me better. Sounds like a good project! Despite my encounter I hold no grudge towards Iveco. In fact what does irritate is that two days earlier I’d had new Michelin CrossClimates fitted.

Best laid plans...and all that, Andy. I thought that too about my previous car - a Honda Accord bought new six years earlier. And then an Iveco truck wrote it off on the M25 and I discovered it was no longer on sale in the UK. Still, on the plus side I then discovered Lexus. So not all bad.

Judging from the bodywork it might have already been done! Is there any swirling evident? If so, then I’d recommend it. I had mine done recently and a well applied ceramic coating is a sound investment Mind you, there’s one drawback that I found that may not affect you. No more taking it through the car wash! My IS250 is white, which I think is possibly the colour that benefits least. It just looks very shiny. I think your colour would probably benefit more from the extra sense of depth that ceramics would give it. All the best with it.

Probably my fault John, but I suspect you didn't get to the end of my post. That was my 'ultimate' conclusion.

Apologies for not getting back sooner, John. But you raise some interesting points. It may well be that was the problem, who knows? Who knows, indeed John? Well on the one hand we have a problem that’s diagnosed, rectified and never recurs. On the other, it would appear, no diagnosis, an unfair and unexplained attempt to blame the customer and a product - and still no solution. This magazine item stuck in my mind because at the time I was driving cars that could have fallen victim to the same problem. Apart from that, it was a logical and elegant example of problem solving without resorting to unexplained associations. After all, correlation doesn't imply causation! But let me tell you where I’m coming from, as the expression has it. Apart from Slick50, I’ve also been involved with Esso, BP, Castrol and Amoco and I’ve met quite a few (self proclaimed🙂 ) tribologists. I cannot ever recall any of them admitting that their products would be improved by the addition of an after-market additive. Whatever parameters they were then working within - be it technical, performance or budgetary – they were content that they had created an optimised product. So, to your link. I haven't had time to go through it in detail, but perhaps my first impressions will suffice. http://ultimatesyntheticoil.com/facts_about_aftermarket_oil_addititives Firstly, I see the site’s headed with the claim ‘Ultimate Synthetic Oil’. Well, as with BP’s Ultimate Fuels, it may sound impressive but it’s not a term I would ever have used. Where do you go in product development from there? Ultimate Plus? Super Ultimate? I just don’t get it. Anyway, Amsoil is not one I’ve ever heard of and that’s possibly because it’s a direct marketing operation and doesn’t appear on the shelves or websites of relevant retailers. So unlike Slick50, which appears to have a considerable product range in, for example, Halford’s, Amsoil turns up on two web platforms sold by distributors, such as the one run by Brian & Melodie Dobben that you’ve linked to. Dobben seems to devote a huge amount of effort rubbishing Slick50 which, despite it not being an actual oil, he obviously feels is a major competitor. And understandably so. If you're a relatively small player in a field then you compare yourself with the major player and, as I understand it, Slick50 is still the brand leader in its market. Naturally enough, his challenges are a bit selective and I think he also questions why Slick50’s current owners don’t reply? Well, why would they? Amsoil’s sales are irrelevant to Slick50’s. Scroll far enough down the page and eventually you get to its main purpose – which is to puff the product he’s trying to sell. I note that he refers to its various additives – which he declines to list – as providing all the many efficacious effects that he earlier dismissed. In his position, I would probably do the same! Unlike the major refiners, who can provide their own base oils, blenders such as Amsoil have to buy everything in. So they source a base oil and then trawl the market for Viscosity Modifiers and Additive Packages. They can buy either off-the=shelf formulations or develop market specific solutions that they wish to target – invariably budget driven. From then on, it’s all down to marketing. And sometimes the marketing budget exceeds the product development budget. Especially if you’ve already produced the ‘Ultimate’! So would I use an oil additive? Well, I did use the original Slick 50 because I knew the background development, saw all test procedures and the many failed attempts to discredit it. And personally experienced the real world effects of friction reduction. Would I use the current version? Probably not. Finally - you’ll be glad to read - and as you kindly provided an informative link, here’s an article that seems as good as any on the relationship between oil companies, engine oils and after-market additives. https://www.oilem.com/blog/oil-additives-our-view/

Could have been worse. For example, some time ago I drove in to the local car wash and inadvertently partially lowered a rear window. I thought the car wash was a bit noisier than usual. It was only when I got out later that I noticed the rear seats were also a bit damper than usual. Still, they scrubbed up nicely. Mind you, it can’t happen again. Having had the car ‘detailed’ and ceramic coated, car washes are now verboten.

Well remembered, Mike. I’ll try and answer your questions – although we are talking over 35 years ago! And I must emphasise that I cannot speak for current products of the same name! And now I must apologise. I think you've asked for what is going to be a rather long post! Correct. Chris Mitchell’s Mitchell Marketing was based in Leicester. He was already distributing such products as Hammerite and Waxoyl and later expanded with stick-on bullet holes and the Knuckle Buffer – plastic finger tips designed as a door edge protector but more usually seen poking out of the boot lid and scaring traffic wardens! All the earliest product boxes at launch had had any mention of "Teflon" painstakingly covered over with some tiny black stickers. That must have been laborious for someone! I think some of the very early packaging may have came over from the States. But it obviously didn't last long. In the year following launch we obviously changed it to reflect the product changes, because I see in 1986 that it won a marketing industry ‘Best Packaged Product’ award! I seem to recall that it wasn't a particularly cheap additive. I can't actually remember the price, but a gallon of Castrol GTX was around £2.99 from Halfords, as a period reference. I’m looking at a 750ml box – sufficient for a 3l engine, - and the Halford’s sticker is for £15.49. So yes, it was substantially more than other products on the shelf. The story at the time (from where? I don't know) was that DuPont, the Teflon brand name owners, were unhappy with their name being used on the Slick 50 product, so it had to be removed. I never found out any more. I imagine there was more background story to this? As I understand it, DuPont didn’t like their Teflon brand, normally associated with cooking utensils, being linked to any engine lubricants. However, they obviously didn’t feel too badly about it as they continued to supply such companies knowing that that was exactly what it was going to be used for! Some years later, I did try one of your competitor's PTFE products, Nulon, from Australia, in a Honda Prelude. I too had a Prelude – for 15 years and 120K miles. And what a great car it was! As for Nulon, I remember them well. They had a UK rep who went around the Slick50 dealers trying to convert them. To aid this he was using material that claimed to show a car treated with Nulon which had been driven across Australia without engine oil. Unfortunately, the Australian Slick 50 representative recognised it as the same car that had previously been treated by a Slick 50 dealer and subjected to a similar, earlier test! We suggested that even if the second treatment was indeed effective (we made no claim that it wasn't) the results may have been affected by the earlier Slick 50 treatment. Somewhat to my surprise, I see that Nulon is still around. The {Nulon} instructions were simple, although I don't remember them exactly. After adding, which you did with the engine running at tickover, the tickover revs rose by 200 or so, which was very encouraging. But, after a matter of minutes, they had gone back to almost normal, and no significant change to the engine or its mpg was ever noticed. I think Nulon instructions are still simple. I checked on their website and they say it can be added at any time, but best after an oil change. No mention of the oil filter. The Slick50 instructions were not simple. You had to shake the container vigorously for about 3 minutes, change the oil and the filter, and idle the engine for at least 30 minutes, revving occasionally. What then happened in the days before chip-controlled engine control systems was that tickover increased dramatically. I think in my case, a Toyota MR2 at the time, it went from about 800 rpm to 1200-1300, so you had to constantly reduce the tickover speed back to normal- where it stayed. It was significant because the only plausible cause was that the friction levels within the engine were being reduced. Incidentally, Slick50 then was only recommended for well run-in engines, not as a magic cure-all for old engines. I notice that some of the self-appointed pundits cite the need to shake the container as an example of its inability to perform. The argument appears to be that if it forms a ’sludge’ in the container, so it will in the sump. Firstly, this ignores that fact that it’s not an emulsion or a homogeneous solution. The oil is merely a carrier for the particles. Secondly, the ptfe platelets are denser than the oil molecules, so will gradually sink through it. Thirdly, by running the engine, or driving the vehicle, after introducing the product, it will be immediately distributed around the engine so that the majority of the particles will have been bonded on to the metal surfaces before the oil stops circulating. The amount of ‘active’ material in the oil was actually surprisingly small, because the coating it produced was only bonded to the moving parts. I also notice claims that the ‘particles’ would clog up pipes and filters. Not so. The platelets were considerably less than the standard 5 microns of a new oil filter, through which they would pass easily, and formed a layer of between 1 and 2 microns on the metal surfaces. The platelets were attracted electrostatically (as I recall) to the metal and then only bonded to the surface through the heat and pressure generated by the moving parts. So it didn’t coat pipes, wire screens and the like, as seems to be a popular claim. As I said, however, I don’t know if any of this still applies to the current product of the same name. I hope this has been of interest, Mike - if you’re still awake!

Sounds like the start of a very happy relationship to me. And it's a really nice colour too.

My two previous cars had the opening sunroof and the sliding sunblind. As with the Lexus, and like yourself, I see no point in opening the sunroof when I have a very efficient aircon. However, I've always kept the sunblinds open. I like the way it brightens up the car interior and makes it feel more spacious.

As this is a thread about oil additives, I thought I’d pick this up again. Actually I don’t think it matters whether it’s the original Slick 50, or the post 1992 version. I can’t think of any way that an engine additive can produce the effect you obviously- and most annoyingly - experienced. More to the point, I doubt that your mechanics could either. I suspect they went for the ‘guilt by association’ method of diagnostics. So no explanation as to the process by which Slick 50 could actually produce this mileage related failure. Without that, it’s simply coincidence. But is there in fact an explanation? Well, it’s not of much use to you now - but I believe there is. I have recalled that many years ago when I read the Popular Motoring type magazines, there was a reader’s problem identical to yours that the Magazine solved. His car performed perfectly on short, local journeys. Every time he set off on a long journey, the engine would eventually start to lose power until it stuttered to a halt. After waiting some minutes for the engine to cool down, it would restart and run perfectly. The solution proved to be almost laughably simple. It turned out that the cork gasket in the fuel filter bowl before the carburettor was gradually disintegrating. Small cork particles were being swept along the fuel line to the carburettor. Eventually they reached the inlet jet...and blocked it. This starved the engine of fuel until it finally stopped. With the engine stopped, there was no longer any suction or pump action to move the cork particles on to the jet, so they gradually flowed back down the fuel line. This enabled the engine to restart and run perfectly on short journeys. Replacing the gasket and cleaning the fuel line and jet, permanently solved this reader’s problem. As I say, bit late for you now. But at least it exonerates additives. And why didn’t your mechanics find this fault? Because it was intermittent and they didn’t look for it. Blaming the Slick50 that you had put in was a whole lot easier. And didn’t even warrant an explanation!