Oops - what have I done! Bought RC200t

[Linas.P]

I dread the horrible rattle which somebody described as "smooth engine".. much more than any BMW. 0-60 is comparable, just feels much worse.. however engine is much less responsive - so joining main roads expecting the power to be "there" could be serious mistake. Not something I have previously encountered with silky smooth and much more efficient v6, again the engine which somebody described as "outdated".

Regarding last point - I don't think I would ever do, because it isn't financially feasible, but funny enough - engine swap would solve the only issue with the car. 

On positive side - RC is actually more practical for my use than IS. This primarily comes from folding rear seats... somewhat unexpectedly I can fit 2 bicycles once seats are folded and front wheels removed (...wheels of bicycles obviously). This was an issue with my old IS, as it does not take bicycle rack, nor fit the bicycles in any other way (there was an option of roof rack, but it was more expensive than the car itself).

So yes - with the different engine it would be perfect car... how could anyone say it is acceptable engine is beyond me!

[MartinH]

Ah, interesting on bicycles! I have not found carriage of racebikes a problem on the IS250. They go on Thule roofbars, front wheel off, fitted in to an Italian brand of clamp whose name I have forgotten because they pre-date this century. The clamps that attach the roofbars to the car have to be tensioned up tight and even of course but the rig is secure even at high speeds with up to three bikes. But of course it would be agreeable not to have to go to the bother when only one bike is needed and can be chucked in the boot. Oddly enough, I saw an RC only today and noted this might be a possibility. My wife would also like this so she can carry more crap back and forth to her allotment, flouting my firmly expressed advice that the Lexus is not a mobile wheelbarrow.

[MNMJ]

I used Thule roofbars on the IS too. I could also fit my racing bike (XL size) in behind the seats if I was transporting only one bike. I used a dog hammock to protect the seats

I'd love to have folding seats on the RCF, but there is only a 'ski-hatch'. Instead I use a Seasucker minibomber:

I don't have a sunroof, so both suckers go on the roof and I can open the boot

 

 

[MartinH]

Haha nice, the car too!

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, MNMJ said:

Instead I use a Seasucker minibomber:

Thule roof rack was something like £1800 list time I looked... 

How much is Seasucker minibomber (amazing name as well 🤣)?

I think the only issue with that... I am one of those strange people who spends 48 hours polishing the car... so I cannot accept that some dirty bicycle will be scratching it .. or rack.

[noby76]

15 hours ago, Linas.P said:

however engine is much less responsive - so joining main roads expecting the power to be "there" could be serious mistake. Not something I have previously encountered with silky smooth and much more efficient v6, again the engine which somebody described as "outdated".

So yes - with the different engine it would be perfect car... how could anyone say it is acceptable engine is beyond me!

the thing weighs in at almost 1700KG that's even heavier than my GS which is 4 doors. of course its bound to feel more sluggish than the MK2 IS250 which is around 100kg lighter when compared to the RC. 100kg is a lot of weight to carry around..

cut the RC some slack here its still a fine looking coupe with descent power. my work colleague drives a 320i BMW with the NA 4 pot engine he gave me a lift  and i tell you what my previous Honda Accord sounds 10 times better both at low speed and when Vtec was on cam having been in lots of 4 pot german cars after my honda i now realised honda actually makes the best sounding 4 cylinder petrol NA engines

[MartinH]

Why is the RC so very heavy? On the face of it there is less metal than the IS. Or does it just look smaller because coupé?

[F.A.]

1 hour ago, MartinH said:

Why is the RC so very heavy? On the face of it there is less metal than the IS. Or does it just look smaller because coupé?

It’s heavy because it is an amalgamation of 3 platforms. The front is from the 4GS, the middle is from the 2IS Hardtop convertible and the rear is from the 3IS. 

[NemesisUK]

It's heavy because it has a large traction Battery in the boot.

I can't quite see why the weight would come from the amalgamation of three different platforms?

[noby76]

1 hour ago, MartinH said:

Why is the RC so very heavy? On the face of it there is less metal than the IS. Or does it just look smaller because coupé?

could be the fact that Toyota actually used quality proper parts other than plastic for most components which in turn carries weight when compared to the Germans who use plastic for any part they can get away with.. unfortunately this is the trade off... funny how the RC is only 40kg lighter than an AWD 3.8 twin turbo Nissan GTR . I think Toyota could have put it on a diet and shed some weight here and there but they never compromise that's the thing with Toyota.

[JamesIS220]

Sorry to hear your disappointed in the engine on your new car.

I have recently bought a 2015 Toyota Auris Hybrid estate and there are a few things I don't like about it. The dim headlights and the noise it makes when revving hard. I'll upgrade the bulbs to the optibright and noise I'm getting used to. The things that I do like are it's colour, fuel efficiency and that its comfortable and zero road tax. Its no sports car, just an A to B car that's ultra reliable. I'm averaging 52mpg and last Friday did 60 miles from Brum to Leominster (A456) and averaged 62mpg on eco mode. Return only 54mpg.

The car I like most for driving is my old 1996 Volvo 940 auto. 2.3 litre low pressure turbo petrol B230FK engine. They have no turbo lag and kickdown works well. Not great handling or fast but fun at the lights.

James.

[Linas.P]

On 2/19/2020 at 2:19 PM, noby76 said:

MK2 IS250 which is around 100kg lighter when compared to the RC. 100kg is a lot of weight to carry around..

It is not heavier than GS mk4 (1721kg for 250 and 1865kg for 450h). Further, RC falls right in the middle in terms of weight of other cars it is based on. IS mk2 Convertible is 1763kg, GS mk4 is 1721kg and IS mk3 is 1630kg - that makes average of 1698kg... right on the spot of actual RC weight of 1695kg. So yes - it is heavier than IS.. because it has less than 1/3 of IS. Actually, it has more in common with GS - entire front section, front and rear suspension, engine mounts and subframe is GS. Front brakes are 4 piston from IS/GS350 - the brakes alone are 80kg. Middle section is from IS-C and I believe it was designed to have convertible option... so the car is stiff enough not to have a roof - sadly never happened and now it is just extra weigh.

Lexus IS250 mk2 is 1580kg/204hp and RC200t is 1695kg/242hp - this works out at 129hp/ton for IS and 142hp/ton for RC. When it comes to torque it is even more noticeable 260Nm vs 350Nm - making it respectively 158 and 206Nm/ton. In short being heavier should make no difference - car is sufficiently more powerful "on paper". Problem is how the power is delivered, where it is in rev range and matching of gearbox to the engine. Again - it is just poor engine design and it is poorly optimised.

I cannot feel the car being made from "better material" - if anything both mk3 IS and RC feels lighter/cheaper inside compared to mk2 which feels more solid/luxurious. Don't get me wrong - RC is still very well build, but just don't feels as sturdy.

I generally agree that RC is kind of heavy, but the body is noticeably more rigid - perhaps that justifies it. I had 2019 BMW320d for 2 weeks as contersy car and I kid you not the body would flex so much you can hear door panels creaking. Once I did it accidentally when going of the pavement parking, but then probably 10 more times to make sure I am not dreaming and to show that to my friends/girlfriend. You can literally put the finger in the gap between door and front panel and feel it being pinched when going off the pavement. I guess to match RC rigidity and make it lighter the chassis should be made from CF.

[noby76]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

 

Lexus IS250 mk2 is 1580kg/204hp and RC200t is 1695kg/242hp - this works out at 129hp/ton for IS and 142hp/ton for RC. When it comes to torque it is even more noticeable 260Nm vs 350Nm - making it respectively 158 and 206Nm/ton. In short being heavier should make no difference - car is sufficiently more powerful "on paper". Problem is how the power is delivered, where it is in rev range and matching of gearbox to the engine. Again - it is just poor engine design and it is poorly optimised.

 

yeh but i'm surprised you dont know having a higher power to weight ratio in a car will still not translate to being 'fun' to drive. it might be quicker/faster but may not be fun to drive.. my GS300 and previous GS430 was quite rapid in a straight line but was not rewarding to drive like the 2.4 Accord i had with only 190bhp... I have never owned a turbo charged car before as all my cars have been big engine'd straight 6, V6, V8 and higher revving 4 cylinders but are turbo charged cars not meant to have a bit of lag to them mainly smaller displacement ones? i mean i know its a twin scroll and all which should some what eliminate lag but by how much i don't know. ECT PWR mode find gives more of a 1 : 1 ratio of quick accelerator pedal response..

Quote from article below might explain why:

For example, some Lexus 200t owners are faced with a difficult to diagnose problem associated with a failure to respond to the accelerator pedal after several quick accelerations. In most cases, the problem was solved by full resetting of the software or completely replacing the engine control unit. The turbine bypass valve may emit sounds. It is also the cause of unstable engine operation at high speeds causing dips in power. This problem relates to the engines of the first 2 years of production (the manufacturer already has replaced this valve with a new smaller one).

https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=139

 

[Linas.P]

What is "fun" or "nice" to drive is really subjective, but there are certain objective measurements to compare how well the car behaves. However, I am not surprised that IS250 was more fun and nicer to drive. What I am saying is literally that the car with more hp/ton is slower... it does not "feel" slower - it is slower in 80% of situations compared to IS250.

The only real place where 200t is faster is sort of 40-90MPH, which isn't exactly practical.. and yes from stand still to 60MPH would be faster, but just barely and IS250 would still be in front most of the way to like 45-50MPH - this should not be the case considering power/weight ratio.

This tells me is that car is not well tuned, the engine and gearbox does not work well together and the car is not optimised to use the power it has efficiently. In itself it is not that surprising - different engine/gearbox options in same model will vary in how refined they are. What is surprising however is that in UK across entire Lexus range (bar LC and F-marque) we only have 2 main engines and both are terribly refined for driving. It seems as if Lexus said - "well those brits are lost cause, they care more about co2/mile and their screwed car taxation system, so let's scramble something passable together - they won't understand the difference as nobody cares about driving there anymore".

As for turbo engines being laggy - that should be the "past"... at least according to manufacturers and journalists. It will never feel as "natural" and lineal as NA, but it should not longer be a noticeable issue... or at least that is what they are feeding us to make it easier to swallow downsizing and turbocharging - which seems to be clearly inferior to the engines we had even 10 years ago.

[MartinH]

Whatever the power/weight figures say, the IS250 is pleasing to drive. You can creep around like an Uber driver if need be, and let's face it, most of the time in town we do. But the throttle response is nicely linear so when the opportunity arrives, it responds to a bit of welly.

A second point in its favour is the way it looks. It is original, complete, and all of a piece. Parked next to my neighbour's new rosso corsa Alfa Giuletta it's equally fine and 'by common consent' that is one of the best-looking saloon cars on the road. By contrast the third series IS has a corporatized styling that just doesn't quite cut it.

Yes it is old, and now even a little tired, but it won't give up soon, and best of all, it's mine, paid for long since, and every year I keep it, it pays me back some more.

Of course, these are but personal views.

[Linas.P]

I wish Lexus had improved on what they had instead of this half-cooked hybrid/turbo non-sense. 

[noby76]

On 2/24/2020 at 11:01 PM, Linas.P said:

I wish Lexus had improved on what they had instead of this half-cooked hybrid/turbo non-sense. 

How can they when they need to produce an engine which emits low emissions and being fuel efficient at the same time? they are working with what they got so is every other car manufacturer out there. ICE engines are banned in UK come 2035 so enjoy it whilst you can.. hopefully there will be some high powered V8's left for me to play with come that time..electric cars are ok in terms of performance but nothing comes close to opening up a well tuned ICE engine and hearing it roar.. 

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, noby76 said:

How can they when they need to produce an engine which emits low emissions and being fuel efficient at the same time? 

First of all - no they don't... secondly their new engine in practice (8AR-FTS in particular) is neither more fuel efficient, nor emits less emission. So even if you statement would be true - they still have failed miserably. 

I am telling you - IS200t is literally less fuel efficient than IS250, if it is less fuel efficient then it means it emits more as well - more fuel burned = more emissions. The 300h is a bit of joke as well - unacceptably slow and fuel consumtion is just mediocre. If they are trying to make half hearted "compliance car", then they simply failed to deliver - look at what BMW is doing - 5/330e are both fast and fuel efficient, merc are doing the same thing with E/C350e. I cannot comment on driving pleasure, but certainly it cannot get much worse than 300h/200t. So Lexus "effort" is just not enough.

There are plenty options in between bottom feeding entry-level compliance vehicle and V8, yes indeed the roar makes the driving an "occasion", but more powerful V6 as well could suffice. Again in comparison with 350, the 200t consumes just as much fuel, but is nowhere near as powerful/fast - yes I guess on paper 200t emission are lower, but that is not true in practice. As I said before - Lexus had an option to deliver something truly good or just follow the regulation by the letter to deliver something "compliant" but 💩... 

[doog442]

Love it

 

 

[noby76]

1 hour ago, doog442 said:

Love it

 

 

🤣😂

[dutchie01]

this thread is developing in a bizarre way.. i keep thinking about a man on an empty beach digging a big hole and then jumping in......

[MartinH]

An extended soliloquy on buyer's remorse?

[royoftherovers]

2 hours ago, MartinH said:

An extended soliloquy on buyer's remorse?

I do not believe that Linas can perform a soliloquy if he tried.

Congratulations on the spelling though Martin ! 

[First_Lexus]

8 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

this thread is developing in a bizarre way.. i keep thinking about a man on an empty beach digging a big hole and then jumping in......

^^ Love it! The question is, once in the hole do you keep digging?

[dutchie01]

23 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

^^ Love it! The question is, once in the hole do you keep digging?

well, when you dont realize youre in the hole you propably will?