Bluemarlin

I did John. My question was prompted by the fact that my car has had a couple of years of doing 30k or so, thus running out of battery warranty in those years. However it subsequently still gets a hybrid health check and renewed 1yr/10k warranty. Granted it's under 150k total though. It would be interesting to hear from anyone whose car is under 15 years old and over 150k miles, as to whether they still get the hybrid health check and extended 1yr battery warranty.

I'm not sure that's right Maurice, as if you were to do 30k a year for the first 5 years, and then 10k a year after that you'd be over 150k miles for those last 10 years. According to the wording, the battery would run out of waranty for each of the first 5 years, but remain in warranty for the last 10, despite being well over 150k miles total. Does anyone know if I'm assuming correctly?

Hybrid health check gives an additional 1 year or 10,000 miles (whichever comes sooner) warranty extension. Up to 15 years old but no mention of overall mileage.

Whilst knowledge of Latin in itself may appear redundant, I've found that what little I remember from school has sometimes helped me understand something in other countries like France, Italy, Spain.

Don't know about Sussex, but I recently had my ATF fluid done by Japex in Hertforshire, an independent specialist. They quoted £129 for a basic drain and fill (around 4L), but said it might cost more if the condition of the existing oil suggested that it needed complete replacement. Apparently the existing oil was ok so they only did the basic drain and fill for £129, which at the very least gave me the impression they were trustworthy and wouldn't charge for unneccessary work. I was very happy with the service I got from them and imagine they could do what you needed. Not sure if that's too far for you though, but they can provide a loan car if needed, so might be worth giving them a call.

I'm sure there's truth to the working class thing Ed. I remember seeing old black and white clips of cyclists pouring out of factories at knocking off time. Likewise the policeman on his bike, but lets not forget the midwife on her bike too. Interestingly, in the 1930's, there was stong opposition to cycle paths, not from motorists, but from cycling bodies. Here's a 1934 letter from the club secretary of the Cyclists Touring Club: "The demand for separate tracks for cyclists is part of the campaign of motorists to appropriate public highways for their exclusive use. Have we yet got to accept a condition of affairs when cyclists have to renounce their use of the roads to escape annihiliation? If motorists do not wish to conform to a standard of conduct on public highways compatible with the safety of all other users, then it is they and not cyclists who should abandon the use of the highway, the main cost of which is borne by ratepayers. There is nothing to prevent motorists from building at their own expense private roads where they can indulge their craze for speed without let or hindrance." To that end, cycling groups were strong supporters of motorway building as a means of removing speeding cars from smaller roads. Much like today then, some of the arguments, on both sides, hide territorialist resentments behind a smokescreen of safety concerns.

I kept to s*x rather gender terms, so I think it's still just males and females. Granted, one could have a male woman or a female man. Perhaps though it would have been easier if I'd said those who ride bikes with crossbars and those who don't😉

I'm not sure I'd trust any repairs now and, even they do fix it to a reasonable standard, who knows what damage has been caused that could come back to bite you later. I can understand the temptation to buy a car with a known fault, simply because it seems a good price but, unless you're able to source parts and fix it yourself, it can often end up being more expensive than buying a decent one in the first place. I'm with Paul, and would go for a refund. As a matter of interest, how catastrophic was the MOT failure? Would it not be cost effective to get your old car through the MOT to get you out of your short term dilemma?

Maybe it's the lack of hills that makes cycling more popular in the Netherlands😉 Seriously though, one noticable cultural difference in the UK is that around 80% of regular cyclists are male, whereas I suspect a more even split in the Netherlands. Anecdotally (speaking to female friends and listening to a program on Radio 4) it seems that women don't feel safe cycling, especially in cities, and are less confident on public roads, which I can understand. Also, given that many cyclists are also motorists, I imagine there's an element of split loyalties/priorities too. Some of the resistance is clearly knee jerk too, as there are many cases where defined cycle lanes benefit motorists as much as cyclists, so I think the government could do a better job of selling the benefits to all road users. But yes, culture's a funny thing. I'm surprised cycling isn't more popular in the USA, as in many towns I've visited there are miles and miles of virtually unused pavements, as nobody walks anywhere.

Did you wash the car prior to it happening, or did it rain? Sometimes water can get into the sensors and cause a fault. If so then you could try something like wd40 to try and disperse any water (wipe away any excess), or leave them to dry a while and see if they work then.

My understanding is that Esso E5 doesn't contain any ethanol, and that the labelling of E5 means "up to" 5%. Copied from Esso website: "Although our pumps have E5 labels on them, our Synergy Supreme+ 99 is actually ethanol free (except, due to technical supply reasons, in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland). Legislation requires us to place these E5 labels on pumps that dispense unleaded petrol with ‘up to 5% ethanol’, including those that contain no ethanol, which is why we display them on our Synergy Supreme+ 99 pumps."

I bought some from aliexpress and there were no import charges. In fact I've never had any import charges for anything from aliexpress.

I agree Doog, it's a shame that there isn't better cycling infrastructure in the UK, for the benefit of all road users. By road cyclists, I assume you mean those who tend to ride competitively on the roads, but it seems that they tend not to use any cycling specific infrastucture, even when it is available. I can understand the desire to ride competitively, and the frustration at not having sufficient facilities to do so, but to use public roads as an alternative is simply dangerous. Clocking your fastest time for a route, and riding as safely as possible, are mutually exclusive. As such, some of the conflict comes from drivers feeling that they're being blamed for all cyclists problems, when clearly there are some groups of cyclists who put their competitive urges ahead of their safety. As a cyclist I feel a lot safer in a bike lane, and as a motorist I'd be more than happy with more bike lanes built, if bikes were compelled to stick to them. From a motorist's perspective, I have no problem with an old guy on his shopping bike holding me up, it is what it is. Safety is enhanced by predictability, and he's predictable. However, a flock of road racers isn't. They can loom up from behind in slower moving traffic, on both sides of the car, giving you little idea or warning of who's going to pass, and on what side, as you politely try to manoeuvre and give them space. They're no better when they're in front of you, as they randomly switch from two to three abreast, or one of them darts out of the pack to switch lead. I'm all in favour of doing whatever it takes to make cycling safer for the average cyclist, but it's time to acknowledge that their are two distinctly different types of cyclist. Those who ride as a means of transport, and those who ride as a competitive sport. The former should be accomodated as much as possible, and the latter restricted to dedicated facilities.

As both a cyclist and a motorist, I find the biggest problem to be the cyclists who use the roads for racing and speed trials. Public roads shouldn't be used for competitive sports, whether that be driving or cycling. These cyclists rarely seem to check behind themselves or use hand signals, and often dart around traffic and other cyclists without warning, rather than face the inconvenience of slowing down. Ironically, the 20mph speed limits everywhere make the situation worse, as this now makes cars slow moving obstacles for these groups to navigate round at high speed. Although cyclists are not subject to speed limits, when driviing at one it should be reasonable to assume that no-one can legally overtake you, especially in your own lane, but that's not the case in such a zone. Cyclist can now come flying by, on either side, in the same lane you're driving in, sometimes with the tiniest gap between you and either the kerb or oncoming traffic, and sometimes both. I actually agree with the highway code changes that put a greater onus on motorists to be more mindful of cyclists and pedestrians. I believe that anything that makes cycling safer should be welcomed, but that should include appropriate additional requirements for cyclists as well as motorists, for both their own safety and that of others. A start might be that cyclists should have mirrors, speed limits, and should be compelled to use cycle paths where provided. Mirrors are cheap, speed limits are common sense, and bike lanes are being built at great expense, and all add to the safety of cycling. I'm fine with motorists being compelled to drive more safely, but feel that cyclists should be compelled to ride more safely too. As for helmets, according to Dutch government stats, where helmet wearing is rare, helmet wearers are more likely to suffer serious injuries. That's not to say that helmet wearing in itself is the cause, and instead that cyclists who wear helmets are usually only those who are riding competitively, and at far greater speeds. The faster the speed, the greater the risk, and that applies as much to cyclists as it does motorists.

One's just a quick start guide that covers the basics, and the other is much more detailed affair. There should have been hard copies of both with the car.

In which case you might want to pop over to the Lexus website and download the full manual. Makes Lord of the Rings look like a brochure 😀

Given that goverment and local authorities want to encourage cycling, then it would make no sense to apply licences or specific insurance requirements to cyclists. I suppose one could conceivably make a case for local authorities to underwrite any damage caused by an activity they enable and encourage, in much the same way as one can claim for pothole damage, but I can't see them being enthusiastic about the idea. As has previously been said though, there are plenty of other causes of uninsured damage to cars, like shopping trollies, careless kids playing, dogs off leashes etc. Switzerland used to have a bike licencing scheme and then scrapped it for being too expensive to run, but I believe they have an "almost" mandatory requirement for people to have some kind of third party liability insurance, which would cover such things, and seems to make some sense.

Check page 585 Dess. Just had a quick look online and, assuming I got the right model, it has differential specs at the top. It says 1.35 litres, Toyota genuine differential gear oil 75w85 GL-5 or equivalent. If it's not in your manual then I'm sure someone else will come along to confirm.

If you're concerned about the tyre/wheel, then one thing you could try is to swap the two front wheels around and see if the noise stays on the left, or moves with the wheel. Only do this if the tyres aren't directional. If they are the tyre will have an arrow somewhere on the sidewall showing the direction of rotation, and if so then swap from front to rear (assuming same size front and back)..

Parking an RX isn't so bad. I take my mum shopping so I can park in the wider parent and child spaces😉

I would think that, unless the car's been modified, it wouldn't even crop up as an issue in any potential claim. Even if it did I imagine it would be the insurers responsibility for having an incorrect database. Anyway, out of curiosity, I thought I'd check my Direct Line policy as I don't remember any questions about power output. It does have a section for engine details (which I assume was autocompleted from their database), which states the correct engine size and bhp for the ICE, and then adds Hybrid Electric, with no reference to combined output, or that of the electric motors.

I can confirm that I too have the Lexus 10 year plus warranty, and took it out in November of last year. Cost was £546 for an RX450h, and includes UK and European breakdown cover. If I recall correctly, the dealer wasn't aware of this when I first asked, and so I called Lexus UK and they emailed them the details. After that it was plain sailing. As stated above, and according to the paperwork, the administrator is TWG and the warranty provider is Toyota (GB) Ltd. I believe they check/approve vehicle first and annual servicing has to be carried out by Lexus. For the record, I purchased my car from an independent dealer rather than a Lexus main dealer. I also got the impression (might be wrong though) that it didn't matter where bought, or whether it had a full Lexus service history, as long as it passed their inspection, and future servicing was done by Lexus. That said, apart from the selling dealers oil change prior to supply, all prior servicing on mine was carried out by Lexus.

Hi John, In my experience, once a battery has been drained sufficiently that it won't start the car then, unless it gets fully charged, it's prone to draining quickly again. By fully charged, I mean a day or two on a charger, as opposed to 30 minute runs. 30 minutes of driving or running the engine may keep a good battery sufficiently topped up, but will struggle to fully recharge one that's been run down. It's not so much how hybrid cars work, my previous non hybrid car would suffer the same if left for multiple extended periods and not fully recharged. It's more that hybrid cars are often fitted with smaller batteries to save money/space/weight, as they're not used for direct engine cranking. I solved the previous car problem with an obd2 port connected solar charger left on the dash, which kept it sufficiently topped up. Not sure if that would work in your circumstances for periods of extended lack of use.

Intensive use would be things like towing a caravan, carrying heavy loads, or driving over rough/hilly terrain for extended periods. Basically anything that might put extra strain on the transmission.

That's great news!