DBIZO

This is a documented issue - these 12V batteries in the hybrids (and EVs) are small, and do not last long when left uncharged, which means that they get deep discharge damage some time after 2-3 weeks. I had the same issue, an unpleasant experience at an airport after I bought my 2015 plate last April, and upon my complaints the dealer (Snows) promptly replaced the battery at no cost. I cannot begin to understand how your dealer did not replace yours immediately, it's a small cost. Because I was pleased with how they handled my complaint, I've been going back to Hedge End and have already spent ££££. Point is, trust in God, powder dry, 12V battery fresh and charged.

EVs don't work for me, I remain uninterested. I use the car predominantly for long, irregular trips of several hundreds of miles that are simply not practical for an EV. A plug-in version with a small battery pack would make sense, particularly if they could leave Li-ion chemistries behind, and use Na instead for something like 5-8 kWh - keeping the total weight of the pack around the same, 50kg, as the current NiMH. At that point you get 20-30 miles of range around town, no fire hazard, hard cycling capability (you could charge meaningfully in a few minutes with a fast charger and full in 2 hours at home) but it wouldn't be a drag on longer journeys. I can only speculate why Toyota hasn't moved more into plug-ins, I suspect it is for the same reason they are behind in EVs. They made one of the biggest mistakes any consumer company can make: assumed customers are reasonable and don't fall for something that costs more but does less.

Yes, it would be good to learn what things could possibly fail within a few months into years 4-5. It's a young car, but past its "burn in" phase, so you're not exactly at either side of the bathtub. I've got a 15 plate, did over 15k in 11 months (lots of long trips), had a failed 12V battery due to a combination of age and deep discharge, had it changed for free by the dealer. Overall, I'm impressed by the chassis and the suspension at speed, it's a very confident car. I really like the cabin, that Japanese industrial design language that carries the ghost of the halcyon days of the 80s/90s in Japan really strikes a chord in me. Power is plentiful for UK roads, it's lacking low-end torque at high speeds on continental motorways (when you want to pick up speed from say 75 to 90-100), needs revving up to 3500-4500 to pull. Economy is still good when it's really bad (hurrying on winter motorways yields 36-37 mpg), and excellent when I'm soft with her (low 50s mpg) and the weather is good. After all this time with a Lexus CVT, stepped gears, however good the automatic gearbox is, annoying and outdated, even in a Merc (have hired a C-class and an E-class in the past). The mistake I made is that I did not go for a higher trim than Advanced. I thought would you pay another grand for an all in Luxury or Premier trim. Well, to really make the car overall a premium experience. I did not realise how much I'll keep adjusting the seats, and to have the desired positions programmed once I found them would be a boon. Also radar cruise control. Automatic high beam. I'm looking at more recent (2016-) GS 450h Premiers as an upgrade (lower road and wind noise at speed, more torque) , but as you imagine, there is probably one or two on the market at any given time...sadly, none of the new Lexus model appeal, other than an LC500h. My bank account says I don't have 100k to spare on a toy. Sad.

Not being able to understand why people buy insurance is like not being able to understand wear bike helmets. A good one will cost you significant money, and if you're lucky, you'll never need testing it. There are only two logical ways out of this - if someone takes the view that the probability of a major accident is ultra low, converging to zero; or when someone considers the consequences, however dire, acceptable.

I don't follow any of what you're saying. Money means little in the grand context of things? For that to be true, you either need vast amounts of it, or so little you don't care what you lose. But I bet you even the very rich buy insurance, because it's prudent risk management. Companies buy insurance. Insurance is protection, a hedging position if you like, against financially dramatic, potentially ruinous events. What is it you don't understand about that?

This. A thousand times. And when someone wants the option to travel afar, they should buy one with a petrol generator - a petrol-electric powertrain. LEVC taxis use this unusually sensible approach. Quite shocking really.

You could say government action to contain the pandemic was as well judged, explained and effective as government action in sustainability. But after all, it's the government, shaped by the invisible forcefields of gross incompetence, stealing, and nastiness - the triple-bladed Ockham's razor of political analysis.

I don't have much patience or polite words for the choices carbuyers make, but the systemic world view is rather simple once you go through the complexities to bring them to their conclusion: hybrids would be much more desirable for emission curbing because they deliver much more and much faster within the constraint of our global industrial capacity. People can't get their head around the fact that full BEVs, particularly with Li-ion chemistries, are the worst way to deploy resources to eliminate fossil energy. Also, EVs are not a form of energy generation, so we are not really solving much with them without transforming the grid, in return for immense investments, mining and manufacturing capacity. EVs are additional consumers on the grid, so the CO2 intensity of their consumption should be calculated on the margins. In many many places, that's going to be dispatchable power in the form of gas fired plants for lot of the time. Of course, in Norway, the calculation is very favourable. Or in France. We are neither Norway, the UK grid is currently 8x the carbon intensity of Norway's, and 2x of France's (it's usually considerably worse, but it's a windy night tonight), tighter on supply, and relies on massive fossil generation as standby backup. Much of the US, Germany, Poland make EVs pointless. Before we put too fine a point on debating EVs, PHEVs etc, it doesn't really matter, the IEA data is right. We are talking about a tiny fraction of a fractional part of transport, and one where fossil fuels are really quite difficult to displace. Instead, the rage should be all about cleaning up the grid and building HVAC by transitioning away from coal and gas, insulating buildings, and probably fully electrifying and investing in the expansion of public transport so cars are needed less in day to day life, etc. Let's forget that private car ownership can be in any shape or for be good for sustainability. Buy what you want/need. I'd have gone for a PHEV but there is no charger in the underground garage, and no charger in this neighbourhood at all.

Good to know. I'll probably deal with it on impulse when the Sun is out in the wrong angle and I got out of bed on the wrong side.

Thanks. I've got a 2015 plate and in certain lighting conditions, it looks quite bad. I'll have a look if it can be fixed.

You might want to contact these guys to establish which generation of navigation system you've got. There a chance there is no more recent update than 2012, best case is probably 2018.

What's the purpose of the UV coating in the first place? And if it's important, why is not more durable? If it's not important, why it's there? I don't suppose it's covered by any warranty?

Thanks for this information folks, I might need it. Must admit, I hate I felt compelled to click on this thread: I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff, but my wife's #1 priority is to get connected on Bluetooth and play Spotify - god help if anything goes awry, the car turns into junk in her eyes.

Interesting. Would be curious how much it costs, parts and labour. Hard to fathom it's competitive with industrialized car manufacturing. I would not consider a Li-ion upgrade though to displace NiMh. Probably LFP chemistry, but Na-ion ideally.

All EV mode does is that, if your traction battery is charged enough and fully warmed up, it cuts off the engine (if it was running), and you can also accelerate a bit harder before the engine kicks in again. It's useful when rolling through a residential area at night, for example, or in cases you don't exhaust fumes somewhere. It is not a proper EV mode because there is simply not enough charge in the hybrid battery even if fully charged, to support a full EV run. The usable capacity of the hybrid system in the IS300h is probably a few hundred Wh, you can probably get a mile out of it if fully charged, which it pretty much never is.

It's a given your mpg will be worse with E10, but it's near impossible to quantify with any accuracy. E10 has about 1.5% less energy stored for the same volume than E5, if my maths is not off. What is unknown, is how the engine deals with it - does the thermal efficiency of the engine also drops off, does E10 change injection, etc? Trouble is, even at 5% economy degradation (there are horror rumours about 9-10%), it's nigh impossible to establish that in the wild. No 2 drives are the same, the weight you're carrying may change, then there is temperature, wind. What's certain, is that we are getting less for our money. One could probably investigate on a dyno?

I think we better end it here. Again, all I ask is that you consult some authority that help interpret the rules.

As they say, you are entitled to your own views, but you are at a disadvantage of being completely wrong on all accounts. What you are describing is reckless. Please consult an authority. I think I said all I can, I'm off.

You don't understand the concept behind all that you're reading...which is very concerning. Here is how it works: if a pedestrian does all this above, sees your car approaching, indicating for a turn into that street, then, and please grab the arms of your chair, they have the right of way and it's you, who MUST give way, be it slowing down or coming to a full stop. The only exception, as always, if that forces emergency braking/sudden evasion.

How is this even a debate, beggars belief. It's not an opinion. It's the rules codified in the Highway Code since time eternal; also common sense and empathy. All I did was I provided the reasoning, using my own words, that underpin this rule. You might not like the rule, or not like my reasoning - it's all irrelevant what you like, when it comes to following the rules of road safety. Now, with the latest clarification, it cannot be any clearer (it should always have been), it is now beyond reasonable doubt: It is your responsibility to check upon approach if there are pedestrians (or cyclists/motorbikes, etc, right?) around the corner before you make a turn. Which means you must judge if you can make the turn safely for them (keeping good, comfortable distance), or need to slow down/come to a stop to make sure they can carry on safely. You carry responsibility for their safety insomuch that you present a danger to them - and only for that danger, nothing less, nothing more. Just because you don't like that, you cannot abdicate. It does not mean you bear all the responsibilities either. I'll have you know this is not a rule in isolation. If there are blind spots (parked cars, bus, etc) - you must slow down and watch in case of sudden emergence of people, so you have a chance of stopping, and them avoiding you. Also, if there people walking on the pavement but very close to the kerb, particularly if it's a group of people, you also must slow down or pass them at a larger distance. I vividly remember having been taught that 20+ years ago, also having been told off for not keeping large enough distance from a group of teenagers walking on the pavement. If you don't accept that, all I can ask is that you ask someone of authority, probably someone at the Highway Code, or a traffic cop to talk you through what's demanded of you - or just stop driving.

The shocking thing is, not only most motorist would be surprised that it's not you, already crossing the road, but them, who needs to stop. Some of them will even try and squeeze past. Which makes it clear, that not even in this incorrectly narrow interpretation has been the rule widely known or understood. Appalling.

I can see how it is not clear for you, but that does not make you right. The rule is clear - as a motorist, you bear the responsibility to look out for pedestrians around the junction and judge if you are able to make the turn safely and comfortably, which means them not stopping but carrying on walking, feeling safe. That will mean coming to a full stop sometimes, I'm afraid. You are perfectly wrong in your suggestion that pedestrians either should or can be expected stop before crossing every road all the time to have a careful look. That's simply not how it works. In 3 seconds, which is a few steps, a car from about 30-40 metres behind would catch up with you in town, but in 40mph areas it could be 50+ metres. It is most ludicrous to suggest the risks and responsibilities is symmetric for motorists and pedestrians. They are not a risk to you, but you are to them. That means one thing: you give them space. This 2022 update is a clarification, unfortunate it was necessary in the first place, but the rule has not changed. I'm dumbfounded by the brouhaha around it. Somehow, it's well understood and practiced in many other countries. It's high time UK motorists studied their own Highway Code and understood what it means.

I'm late to this party, but I cannot help myself - I'm perplexed as to how this is even a discussion. This is not a new rule. The rules have not changed. Giving way upon turning has always been the rule, as it is in other European countries as well as the US. I found the Highway Code from 1959. It's there! The Highway Code (1959) (archive.org) "26. When turning at a road junction, give way to pedestrians who are crossing." Yet, somehow UK motorists seem not to know what this means. I don't know why that is, I did not get my licence in the UK. But it looks like a complete misreading of what the intention of the original rule was, which is to keep pedestrians safe, hence the rules original place is in the section entitled "The safety of pedestrians". Claiming that only those pedestrians who are already on the road qualify to be those "who are crossing" is not a reasonable position, and against the spirit of the rule. If they are about to step onto the road, but a few steps away, they are crossing. Why do I know this? After a few quite scary experiences across the UK when cars did not even slow down let alone give way upon turning in while we were about to step on the road, which is the norm everywhere else as far as we can remember, I looked up the highway code years ago. Then the same thing happened again and again, and I had loud exchanges with some drivers about it too. Now reading the news, I'm confused by this confusion. There is no rule change. Only clarification to wording. Which should not have been necessary. I find the argument by the president of AA about rear-ending so utterly absurd it is plain bizarre. Let's not stop then at marked pedestrian crossings either because what if I get rear-ended, right? If keeping pedestrians safe creates accident risk because there are high-speed carriageways with junctions together with pavements alongside, then I've got tough news: we need better, safer roads, and safer pedestrian crossings. The demands of rules and safety are clear.

Hi Tim - sucker for Lexus satnav here too. Try and check on your Lexus portal if you've got one, but also make sure you know which multimedia device your car's got. For my 2015 IS 300h, the latest map data available is 2020 Q4, so at best 13 months out of date, more likely 15-18 months out of date - the update was released only last fall. Your car, I think, has no more recent map data than 2019 I should think, but I'm unsure, I couldn't find a good resource to verify it - it should be really simple, and it isn't. The update costs something like £169 I think, which is steep. Not sure it's worth it in your case unless there is a more recent update available. Last time I managed to negotiate into a service out of a complaint I had for free. That was just a few months ahead of the latest release, so my map is probably 2.5 years out of date by now. Driving across Europe, where they're still building new motorways apace, it might be a problem, you're flying above the meadows according the satnav, or worse, you're not taking the fastest route available. Happened to me around Strasbourg this winter. There are also third-party websites where you can download maps for much less (say 60 quid), but then you need to know which version you've got, how to install it, etc. There are manuals. This is not a recommendation, only FYI! Good luck!

Thank you, Michael - notchy is the name for it then, had no clue. Looks like it's a relatively common feature not just in Lexus IS and GS but also other makes. I'm bringing the car for an interim service next week, I'll bring it up to see if they're familiar with it and what the response is. I suspect it's not worth fixing if it's more than a good WD40 treatment. Does it get worse though?