GS450h info required

[Dblock]

51 minutes ago, steveledzep said:

^ This.  Can't be bothered going into the whys and wherefores, everyone else has done that admirably.

Hi thanks for not reading the thread but thanks for playing. 

 

31 minutes ago, calum_h said:

It's the human condition though...not saying it's right but I have seen people spend many thousands to change cars to save a real world 6mpg.

My opinion?  It's a way of justifying that a new car is required.  The decision is made already and cognitive dissonance requires the finding of reasons to support that decision.

Calum

 

What decision is made?

1 hour ago, noby76 said:

I think you might be contradicting your self a little bit here.. reading your previous posts you say you dont want a diesel but in another post you say you would buy a diesel 2.2 cdti fn3 civic or a 335d BMW... sure if you have taken a liking to an fn3 civic why rule out its petrol version? when both the 1.4 and 1.8 petrol versions on paper achieive 40+mpg on combined cycle driving which is more than the mpg you were looking to live with also with the benefit of not having the clutch issues of the diesel version. and the notion of having to rev the living day lights out of honda's to get them to 'GO' is false. I drove my friends 1.6 LS Coupe Civic automatic few years ago and it never lacked torque at either 1500rpm nor at 6000rpm. the 1.8 fn3 makes around 175nm torque at 4300rpm and hits 60 in mid 8 secs thats an engine not lacking torque. and I am guessing you own a 350Z Nissan that makes its max torque at around 4800-5000 rpm so if anything you will find the honda drivable at lower to mid speeds as its not a heavy car.

you say your nissan 3.5 can achieve 28-30mpg which you could live with so why is it an issue to live with a GS450h achieving the same mpg?

you say you prefer to drive cars that are more powerful as it saveS them being thrashed but aside the GS the other two cars you mentioned which were of interest to you was a 1.5 Prius and 1.8 Auris which can't be classified as powerful cars.

i think you might be making a big mistake by trying to compare the prius to the gs450h one is built to be an economical city run around and the other a performance hybrid for both city and motorway cruise not that a prius is not capable of motorway cruise but you kinda get what i mean.. on paper the prius beats the GS450h by an easy 35mpg but what you loose in mpg you make up in other aspects like smooth driveabilty, more sound proofing, more toys, better sound system, and a power difference of around 260bhp on tap when compared to the prius for if and when one bothers to use it thats why the GS450H looses 35mpg against the Prius.

difference between a car returning 30mpg and one returning 40mpg over 1000 miles is around £40-£45 extra in fuel cost not trying to offend or anything as i dont know you but if you have been able to afford and run 3 cars at the same time sure £50 extra in fuel cost a month to drive a car returning 30mpg against a 40mpg one wont break the bank..
 

I've driven the type r version of the that civic the fn2 and it honestly feels slow to me. Also my friend has the 1.8 vtec unit in his something -rv which albiet heavier is slow as hell. Thing with the fiddy is that in normal driving I don't take it above 2krpm and because of that the fuel consumption was really low. It's not 0-60 times, they honestly don't mean anything. It's in gear performance. E.g. the Nissan Leaf's 0-60 time is probably dreadful but it's actually decent when you floor it at 60mph it will still go and quite quickly too. Same with the fiddy it's "only" making 250nm by 1500rpm but thats more than enough at low revs. 

Please read my posts again I am not comparing the prius to gs in fuel consumption. I have a list of cars. The gs450h was at the top. I thought ok that will tick more boxes off therefore allowing me to get rid of more cars. Consolidation if you will. But I was hoping to get at least 40mpg rather than 30mpg. At 30mpg it's offering me nothing. I would want to drive other things at 30mpg. At 40mpg it's a fuel efficient good looking mile muncher. 

I used to drive a 1.4 Tdi Seat Arosa. A 1.4 PD diesel. Amazing on fuel, remapped to 100bhp and weighed under a ton. But it was needed more by someone else and I owe them so they can probably keep it. 1 car down. Now my leaf is going back in October time. So I'm back to 1 car. I prefer to have 2. 1 for commuting and 1 for weekend. Now the Nissan is at 30mpg can do the daily commute. Infact over summer I usually use that and give my mum my commuting car but I will be changing that for an Evo or Impreza later in the year. That will be tuned  and will be my weekend and track car. These cars are evil on fuel though with low 20's driving sensibly and can be in single digits if your being daft hence the reason of the commuting car. 

At 40mpg I can live with that. I would have the power and it's decent on fuel. Also you guys seems to forget bigger cars generally cost more on insurance, tyres, tax and depreciation. But at 40mpg again I could live with that as I would intend to keep the car for 3-5 years. A Prius is better on fuel and does everything cheaper but it's ugly and a lot slower than the other things. That's fine though since it gets much better mpg.  

Basically I'd prefer to drive other things at 30mpg. Also I don't like diesels I really don't but they may be only compromise I can find between fuel efficiency and power. I studied the 335d and would prefer the 330d for a few reasons but with a remap it would be between 280-300bhp with a ton of torque and still average 40+mpg. Also e92's are look nice. The 2.2 cdti's are in the same boat. The clutch will disintegrate but when it does upgrade it and remap it you can easily 195+bhp and loads of torque plus the economy of the diesel. Now I know the prius is even cheaper to run than both of them but is it worth it for me to have 1/2 or 1/3 of the bhp that's what I need to find out. Plus it doesn't look as nice and although diesels suck I can't see it being as fun to drive.

Please understand I'm not knocking lexus they are great cars. But the mpg benefit of the gs450h was the attraction not really anything else. 

[steveledzep]

3 minutes ago, Dblock said:

Hi thanks for not reading the thread but thanks for playing. 

How dare you accuse me of not reading the thread !  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but everyone else's is crystal clear.

You need to decide what your real buying criteria are.  Performance ? MPG ? Comfort ? Looks ?....the list goes on.

My point remains, mpg is of reduced importance with a low annual mileage.

[Dblock]

1 hour ago, steveledzep said:

How dare you accuse me of not reading the thread !  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but everyone else's is crystal clear.

You need to decide what your real buying criteria are.  Performance ? MPG ? Comfort ? Looks ?....the list goes on.

My point remains, mpg is of reduced importance with a low annual mileage.

But you quoted yourself, I then answered you but you ignored that and quoted yourself again? 

Basically nothing lower than 40mpg on a run. Higher is better, but aesthetics and power equal higher mpg on the criteria. E.g. car 1 gets 55mpg but is ugly and slow, this is a good choice. Car 2 gets 45mpg but looks better is is much more powerful. This although getting lower mpg is also a good choice. 

I thought the gs would get around 40mpg on a run but I've been told it wouldn't therefore for myself it's a bad choice. Something that gets 30mpg over something that gets 50mpg will cost me an extra £730 over a year. price of fuel an average of £1 a litre. That is too much for me. Where as 40mpg vs 50mpg is only £272.77 a year. I can live with that. There is a much bigger difference than people are saying. If this was my only car I'd be able to live with that but as as a second car it doesn't work out for me to have 2 cars which aren't great on fuel.

 40mpg is easily doable by most modern diesels that are pretty powerful. But the prius looks like it can do more. I really need to drive a prius to see if I will like it. I don't want to buy one get 55mpg but hate it. That wouldn't be any good. I might love it. Obviously I know now the gs won't do 40mpg which is a real shame as it would have been perfect. It ticked all the boxes. 

[AmbroseJohn]

I think the vehicle you're looking for doesn't exist.

[calum_h]

You're still welcome to look at and ride in mine if you're in Aberdeen.  They are not hyper mpg cars, though, they're luxo barges.  Compared to the big BMW diesels they're a viable economic alternative but not when compared to a 1.4tdi.  I get about 21mpg on solely town use, which I think is impressive for such a big car.  Haven't been many long runs but 35 seems to be the common concensus.

It's the refinement, smoothness and absolute techno joy that the car brings that is amazing.

A group of GS450h owners is not going to convince you to buy something else as we're all convincing ourselves we've made the right decision!

Cheers

Calum

[noby76]

18 hours ago, Dblock said:

At 40mpg I can live with that. I would have the power and it's decent on fuel. Also you guys seems to forget bigger cars generally cost more on insurance, tyres, tax and depreciation. But at 40mpg again I could live with that as I would intend to keep the car for 3-5 years. A Prius is better on fuel and does everything cheaper but it's ugly and a lot slower than the other things. That's fine though since it gets much better mpg.  

 

I can understand you not knocking Lexus nor the GS450h. what Iam struggling to undersatnd is the "need" to own and run two or more cars if you trying to cut back on vehicle running costs? sure buying and running say two cars capable of returning 35 & 50mpg does not necessarily translate to saving on running costs when compared to buying and running 1 car returning say 25mpg? if anything buying and running two cars at 35 & 50 mpg might work out the same or even more than 1 car at 25mpg? since there are 8 sets of tyres to change, 2 lots of servicing to be carried out, 2 mots to be carried out, 2 vehicles to be insured, 2 vehicles to be taxed,2 vehicles to change brakes & discs if and when due and the list goes on.. 

Played around with some figures and this was what i came up with. unleaded is currenlty sold where i live at 101.9pp litre  and lets say you averaged 1000 miles a month this equates to 12000 miles a year if you had two cars. car A (commute car) returning 50mpg and car B (weekend car) returning 35mpg. to fuel car A  for 10000 miles works out £925 to fuel car B weekend car for say 2000 miles since its only a weekend car works out £265. total cost of fuelling two cars over 12000 miles £925 + 265 = £1190

lets say you only owned 1 car which averages 25mpg which is used for both commuting and weekends if you traveled 12000 miles would have cost you about £2225 in fuel cost. 

so £2225 - £1190 = £1035 thats the extra cost of running a car returning 25mpg over 12000 against 2 more fuel efficient ones over the same period.. but by the time you have factored in the initial investment cost of purchasing car B, insuring and taxing it would have already exceeded the extra cost incured of £1035. without forgetting the other running cost of tyres, brake discs/pads and servicing car B will incur during your ownership aswell.  lets say car B cost say £3500 to purchase in the first place that means it would take you about 3 years in order to have broken even and that's just the cost of buying the car

am I the only one who thinks this might actually be false economy on your side?
 

[Dblock]

23 hours ago, steveledzep said:

6 hours ago, noby76 said:

I can understand you not knocking Lexus nor the GS450h. what Iam struggling to undersatnd is the "need" to own and run two or more cars if you trying to cut back on vehicle running costs? sure buying and running say two cars capable of returning 35 & 50mpg does not necessarily translate to saving on running costs when compared to buying and running 1 car returning say 25mpg? if anything buying and running two cars at 35 & 50 mpg might work out the same or even more than 1 car at 25mpg? since there are 8 sets of tyres to change, 2 lots of servicing to be carried out, 2 mots to be carried out, 2 vehicles to be insured, 2 vehicles to be taxed,2 vehicles to change brakes & discs if and when due and the list goes on.. 

Played around with some figures and this was what i came up with. unleaded is currenlty sold where i live at 101.9pp litre  and lets say you averaged 1000 miles a month this equates to 12000 miles a year if you had two cars. car A (commute car) returning 50mpg and car B (weekend car) returning 35mpg. to fuel car A  for 10000 miles works out £925 to fuel car B weekend car for say 2000 miles since its only a weekend car works out £265. total cost of fuelling two cars over 12000 miles £925 + 265 = £1190

lets say you only owned 1 car which averages 25mpg which is used for both commuting and weekends if you traveled 12000 miles would have cost you about £2225 in fuel cost. 

so £2225 - £1190 = £1035 thats the extra cost of running a car returning 25mpg over 12000 against 2 more fuel efficient ones over the same period.. but by the time you have factored in the initial investment cost of purchasing car B, insuring and taxing it would have already exceeded the extra cost incured of £1035. without forgetting the other running cost of tyres, brake discs/pads and servicing car B will incur during your ownership aswell.  lets say car B cost say £3500 to purchase in the first place that means it would take you about 3 years in order to have broken even and that's just the cost of buying the car

am I the only one who thinks this might actually be false economy on your side?
 

Your right. 100% right. But you ever driven a modified car as a daily? 1. Unless it's sunny they are a pain to drive IMO. 2. Lowered cars scrape of everything, I literally refuse to go over speed bumps as I die a little inside when I hear that scraping noise. Plus if it snows lack of ground clearance makes them horrible to drive as your bumper becomes a snow plough. 3. I love the noise they make but manifolds, decats and exhausts even if not boomy on the motorway do make the car tiring when your not in the mood. 4. With the lowered ride height plus other mods like slight -ve camber make it tramline, thick arbs make it crashy, poly bushes don't help and the lowering on bad surfaces make it uncomfortable and again tiring. 5. An Evo or Impreza will slightly solve this but a 2 door without a decent boot makes taking anything a pain. 6. When you commuting to work and back and doing your biz there is nothing better than on your day off if it's sunny. To take the weekend car into the middle of nowhere and just hoon. Don't break the speed limit but go on roads that are tight and technical with the window open so you can hear your daft exhaust. It's the best. That way when you start up your weekend car you know it's going to be fun. You don't care about mpg's or anything at that point as you've earned it.  

6 hours ago, calum_h said:

You're still welcome to look at and ride in mine if you're in Aberdeen.  They are not hyper mpg cars, though, they're luxo barges.  Compared to the big BMW diesels they're a viable economic alternative but not when compared to a 1.4tdi.  I get about 21mpg on solely town use, which I think is impressive for such a big car.  Haven't been many long runs but 35 seems to be the common concensus.

It's the refinement, smoothness and absolute techno joy that the car brings that is amazing.

A group of GS450h owners is not going to convince you to buy something else as we're all convincing ourselves we've made the right decision!

Cheers

Calum

I'm not comparing the gs450h to the arosa. Never was. The 330d seems to be a better option for me. It will average about 45mpg on a run and when remapped will have nearly 300bhp. Won't be as fast or sound as nice as the gs450h but the mpg I can live with. A car isn't perfect. But it might be perfect for someone with their need and wants at that time of their life. 

[KayCee]

Well ive had the 450 H 3 weeks now and i must say its running superb beyond my expectation I thought the CVT would not suit me but it most certainly does. It is smooth as silk( however my last gs300 was also smooth i might add) I dont charge about i just like to waft along and it does this in almost silence even with the engine running.

I am getting 27 around town etc and on a long trip to hull i got 38 but i dont do starship mileage so its no problem i have stopped checking that now as it is of no concern to me.

I contacted the last owner who was a very pleasant man A Company director he said and told me that the car has been faultless and as i had all the history only concern i had was on the last service said rear caliper was seized and as i saw no refrence to it being changed i asked him about it " Oh that yes i told them to change it but the mechanic freed it of with no charge"so all in all i think i have got a gem it is in lovely clean condition and not a mark on it and only done 44k

Well pleased

Thanks to all who said Get one, as i said i was worried about the CVT

 

Robert

 

[Goldberg]

KayCee if the car puts a smile on your face when you get in it and drive then this is the car for you never mind the MPG just smile you now are a Lexus owner and now you know why we love them :)

[cpk]

I feel reasonably qualified to comment on this. 

Partner had a 30k mile 2010 auris hybrid, just sold. Noisy, uncomfortable, but excellent mpg. Genuine 50mpg around town, when I drive it I easily get 60mpg on a long run. My mum borrowed it and got 72mpg on a 70 mile a-road route. Mpg is exceptional. But you don't want to sit in it for long journeys. 

I have a 90k 2007 gs450h. Best tank was 38mpg, worst 35mpg (and that is me calculating). It is very comfortable on long journeys and mpg is ok. Round town it will drop to low 30s but I use it for long journeys predominantly. 

I had the choice of keeping the auris or selling and buying a gs450h. For my drives there was no contest. I do 30k miles a year too and the comfort is worth the cost sacrifice. 

 

Horses for courses. Hopefully my real life mpg figures help your decision. 

[MiDo]

@Dblock

I read as much as I could from this topic. I apologize in advance if I missed something from what I'm going to say.

You don't seem to take into account maintenance costs and, more importantly, reliability. While a BMW 330d or 530d might get around 40mpg (though most owners I've come across say it's around 35-38 for the E60 530), they are awfully unreliable. Unless you talk about the latest (F gen) models which should be too new to have issues, and I don't know much about them.

It's the same with the 2.2cdti engine from Honda. I heard some horror stories about the injectors, HP pump, and their oil drinking habits.

Then there's the DPF on modern diesels. If your commute distance is too small and you rarely get to drive them on long distances (though you did mention monthly trips to Glasgow, so you should not have issues) the DPF will clog, overheat and ultimately fail, which will add more to the cost of owning it (a lot more).

By comparison the GS 450h seems to be one of the most reliable luxury saloon ever built. It really doesn't get better than this.

Good luck making the right choice.