Oops - what have I done! Bought RC200t

[F.A.]

Just now, MNMJ said:

£995 for 2 years of RCF warranty does not seem like premium to me. 

However getting an LC warranty at £2395 for 2 years does suggest reliability worries from Lexus

I agree. Especially as it’s the same price as the RC200t/RC300h

[Linas.P]

13 minutes ago, MNMJ said:

£995 for 2 years of RCF warranty does not seem like premium to me. 

Yes that is bizarre thing RC300h/200t has same warranty as RC-F.

Probably my example was bad, because this is exception rather than rule - most M car and AMG costs a lot of money to warranty compared to their more common models.

[noby76]

M and AMG cars are off your list anyway since you deemed or gave us the notion of them being "over kill" for what you wanted and their higher consumable running costs. I think you keep chasing your own tail here..  you and I know any car is a "compromise" a Lambo may go fast in a straight line but may go slower than a 2018 FWD Civic Type R around the Nürburgring same way a Lex may be very comfortable and quiet but will not take speed round a corner like a BMW would so every car is a compromise of some sort.. 

what makes you think if you should get your hands on an RC350 tomorrow you wouldn't like how the steering feels or exhaust not might be too loud or too quiet for your liking. lets be honest you made a wrong purchase with the RC200t which is not a bad car for the right person but for you it was the wrong purchase. 

1. you don't like the fuel consumption
2. you don't like the acceleration
3. you don't like the fact its 4 cylinder
4. you don't like the gearing

Sell it and buy something like this Here  i am not a fun of BM's but these models for starters are

• not common on the roads
• its petrol
• its 6 cylinders
• its does not hang about
• everyone knows its "prestige" brand
• yes interior looks dull compared to RC in your eyes but that 1 compromise you will have to deal with
• with 17k budget you can easily get price down a further 1k on initial cost and get a 5k warranty on it for peace of mind.

i think this model actually ticks 70 to 80% of what you're looking for the 20% should be the compromise.. whereas the RC200t actually meets about 40% of your requirement which is only the looks 60% which is the engines and drivetrain you don't like.

[Linas.P]

16 hours ago, doog442 said:

It sounds like there is something else the matter with your car (you bought a bit of a dog that clearly hadn't been looked after correct? )

The four pot is considerably more economical than an RCF....I was getting well over 40mpg on a run, my guess is you drive like a nutter. 

I quoted you from different thread, as I would prefer to discuss it here e.g. maybe it is something wrong with the RC200t I have (and not with model in general) and maybe I drive it "wrong". 

To start with - condition of the car

It is above average mileage, was ~59,500 and now is ~63,000, but it had Full Lexus Service History - 7 services ahead of the schedule (70k miles done @58k). The car drives completely fine and there are no weird noises coming from it. So although it is not unreasonable guess - there is nothing in my knowledge to suggest the car is "dog and wasn't maintained properly".

My driving style

Normally, you would be right - I tend to drive like a nutter, but here are 2 things to consider:

1. When I say fuel consumption sucks - I already adjust for my driving style. Meaning I already consider that somebody else driving the same car may achieve 10% better MPG, as well I consider what my MPG would be driving other cars the same. So it is already adjusted for my driving style to paint the car in best possible way and it is still only gets to the level I call "atrocious".
2. Since I bought the car we were in some form of lock-down, roads were quiet, I wasn't commuting and 90% of my miles were in nearly deserted motorways. I short I was driving this car in the fashion which is very unusual for me. I can say that I was almost "hypermiling" it and good fuel economy is simply not achievable in it even when I drive like absolute nun!

So let's address the "nutter point" first - I drove IS250 like a "nutter" for 70k miles and my average was ~29.2MPG. This is ~65/35% Urban/ex-Urban. I tend to believe this is on the higher-end of long term MPGs, so I can really conserve the fuel and hypermile when I want. Again proven by maximum tank 48.9MPG - I not always drive like "nutter" and I often got high 40's on motorway.

Now consider few examples below :

• 90% of my driving in RC200t was done on motorway, I was almost always trying to hypermile it and still go much worse fuel economy in much more favourable conditions. Just comparing to IS250 mk2 (with 130-200k miles) the respective tank MPGs are MIN18/19, AVG22/29, MAX27/49.... if that is not atrocious, then I don't know what is.
• my experience in RC-F is limited, but I have done ~900 miles in 2 different RC-Fs and from my experience in any given real life situation RC-F has better fuel economy. Yes you can push RC-F lower than RC200t and I am sure on race track RC-F would use more fuel, but it would lap RC200t as well, so not fair comparison. Yes - in is some specifically designed lab conditions RC200t will be more fuel efficient or if you cruise at constant 50MPH on perfectly flat road RC200t may do 40MPG and RC-F would only do 33-36MPG - but these numbers do not translate in real life practical fuel economy. I am 90% sure I would get slightly better fuel economy in RC-F, driving it like for like.
• my mate came from Bristol in MB CLK350 (old 2007 v6) and we went to sea side together (mostly motorway), as it happened we both needed to refuel before we set-off,  so I asked him to reset his trip and we compared tank MPG like for like. We were not hanging about, but on exactly same road, same traffic conditions and all the rest when we did brim-to-brim comparison he averaged 34MPG and I averaged 24MPG. How is that not atrocious for nearly 10 years newer car.
• back in  2015 I had IS200t as courtesy car during the service and I noted that fuel economy was tragic, it was nearly new ~6k miles car and I did like 16MPG in 80miles I drove it for. I didn't pay much attention back then as I drove it like mental to be fair - I wanted to see what is "this new and better" IS250 replacement is all about. I wrongly thought that if I would drive it more "reasonably" it would have better MPG.

Conclusion

I have dozen more examples with similar results, but I won't bore you with them all... with following in mind - car has "much worse fuel economy in much more favourable conditions" there are only 2 explanations - it is either inherently fuel inefficient (my opinion) or it is broken. I understand that you tend to later and although I disagree given the condition of the car, I appreciate that is reasonable alternative opinion.

[Linas.P]

19 hours ago, noby76 said:

(about BMW 6-series)

• not common on the roads - here I disagree, where I live they are on every corner.
• its petrol
• its 6 cylinders
• its does not hang about
• everyone knows its "prestige" brand
• yes interior (and exterior) looks dull compared to RC in your eyes but that 1 compromise you will have to deal with
• with 17k budget you can easily get price down a further 1k on initial cost and get a 5k warranty on it for peace of mind.

i think this model actually ticks 70 to 80% of what you're looking for the 20% should be the compromise.. whereas the RC200t actually meets about 40% of your requirement which is only the looks 60% which is the engines and drivetrain you don't like.

You are absolutely right - I have previously admitted myself that I would have been better served by BMW 6-series. I was tracking BMW 6 offers from the moment I started considering replacement for IS250, still doing it for over 4 years now and I have considered many of them. I would ideally go for 650i (as 640i is in any comparison worse than 640d), but all 3 are definitely very capable cars. One thing you probably haven't considered is that comparable FL 6-series costs significantly more than RC200t. The cars which costs the same are pre-FL models without digital dash and old i-Drive and thus not really comparable - below are few which are comparable (F-Sport, ML, sunroof, petrol, right colour, miles/age):

• great looking one, not too high miles, right colour, M-Sport BUT diesel and no sun-roof. -https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202011045775870
• another one great looking BUT diesel and no sunroof and 100k miles - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202009244152048
• petrol one, sunroof, low miles BUT no H&K audio - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202010235347050
• and another one... the same just more expensive - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202010275485974
• this one is perfect - but £30k - oooppps!  - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202006130085595

So in the end why haven't I bought BMW 6-series

• the comparable cars costed ~£5k more
• cars for similar price either had double miles or were 4 years older pre-FL models
• the only really well equipped 6-Series are all diesels or costs crazy money
• they are generally very difficult to find with good combination of equipment
• I even considered convertibles (although soft-top scares me) 

You can call me picky, but over 4 years I never found one without "deal-breaker" issues. In short - I would have bought BMW if perfect BMW 6-series have come before perfect RC. You can say 200t wasn't exactly "perfect" and the engine should have been "deal-breaker" and you would be right - I made mistake believing I can live with it and I was wrong, hence the thread.

19 hours ago, noby76 said:

what makes you think if you should get your hands on an RC350 tomorrow you wouldn't like how the steering feels or exhaust not might be too loud or too quiet for your liking.

RC350 is identical car and has everything I like about RC200t and address all points which I hate about RC200t. So I am fairly confident it would be perfect car for me.

19 hours ago, noby76 said:

lets be honest you made a wrong purchase with the RC200t which is not a bad car (engine) for the right person but for you it was the wrong purchase. 

I indeed was wrong buying it, but I disagree with you that it is "not bad engine" (I don't think RC is overall bad car) - my opinion is still that 8AR-FTS should have never existed as an engine, at very least not until it is more fuel efficient than 4GR-FSE. Obviously, I know they did it to a abuse emission standards and it never meant to be "good engine", it meant to be "more compliant on paper" - which is exactly my experience.

[H3XME]

This is a fun thread. I like your honesty @Linas.P I currently drive 2008 IS250 manual and I started looking into RC200t's as the 300h doesn't appeal to me for two reasons: 1) lack of power or mainly cylinders 2) CVT box.. RC200t sounds like a nice compromise even though it's a 4-pot but a normal turbo engine and a normal gearbox. 

There is a company that offers chip tuning of these. https://tdi-tuning.com/en-gb/car/lexus/rc/20-t-242-bhp-245-ps-180-kw-350-nm-258-lbft/crtd4-multi-channel-petrol-tuning-box-chip

After reading and watching reviews, I think the car would be greatly benefit from the little boost. 300bph and 310ft/lbs seem pretty nice on paper! Apparently they can adjust the turbo-lag that people often don't like, throttle sensitivity and the gearbox problems where it acts a bit hesitant. You should probably try it and report back your thoughts. 

I love the lexus/toyota life and if they sold RC350 in the UK it would be an absolutely no brainer for me, but sadly they don't, so I'm just considering 200t, and not for what it is in stock form, but what it could be when tuned. I did my homework on them, but the only and probably the most important thing I haven't done is test drive one. Thanks COVID. I had IS300h for a few days when my car was in for a recall last year and despite the "instant" oomph thanks to the electric motor, it felt slow compared to my 2.5l V6 barge. I'm sure the RC300h would feel different as a whole as it's a different chassis, but the power delivery and gearbox would be the same. Hence I'm not even considering those. RC200t seems pretty good on paper and until I started reading your thoughts I had no worries per se. I suppose most people wouldn't be so picky about their car as I am.. especially in terms of "feeling". At the end of the day I want a cool looking daily commuter that isn't gutless and is still fun to drive. I'm not sure if RC200t is all those things, but I suppose there is only one way to find out.  

[Linas.P]

Yes RC350 would be no brainier...

I know that RC200t could be chipped... just probably not by "plug 'n play" boxes, but I just think that car is "too young for that". At this point car is warranted and one of key benefits having Lexus is in my opinion is reliability. When you start chipping things, loosing warranty etc. then it becomes project car and ideally you want your project car to be a separate one from your daily-driver. I am sure 10 years later they will be amazing tuner cars (except they won't be because Lexus sold like 10 of them in UK 😁).

All in all, I think for RC200t there are only 2 option - replace it with RC-F or engine swap it (after all it is nice looking body). This car is just a strange thing, especially economy is tragic... and again if throwing buckets of petrol would result in buckets of performance ... why not! But this is not the case. I certainly do not believe that chip-tuning can get 60 more horse power from that micro-turbo, and especially via signal intercept ("cheater") box. I am sure they can remove hesitation from throttle map (because of amurican "unintended acceleration" prevention it is deliberately made numb).

I looked at tdi-tuning in the past and they not leaving good impression, check their T&C - they remain as vague as possible and have all sorts of extra fees and conditions for returns : https://tdi-tuning.com/en-gb/terms-conditions almost next to every claim is says "cannot be guaranteed" and depends on your individual car. At very least I would expect them to offer 30 days "no questions asked return policy".... and that is why proper chip-tuning is done by having car "in house" and custom mapping it to that particular car.

In short - I would only believe their power claims after seeing before and after graphs on dyno.  And if they would have decent policy, I may even pay my own money to book dyno for couple of hours to try it out. Them not offering clear return policy is good indication that their claims probably are a bit over the top. And I do not believe their fuel claims at all on turbo petrol, TD maybe, but definitely not petrol. The only test they passed for me - at least they don't have IS250 in the list of cars they can tune. It is very easy to find if company is fake... that is if they offer 40HP+ for NA cars with chip-tuning, then 100% snake oil. But these guys at least pass that.

I guess in summary - I buy nearly new Lexus to have reliability, comfort and luxury of effortless performance. Not to tinker with it and tune it. Not that I do not respect or appreciate the work which goes into, but because if I wanted to do it I would choose different brand - preferably something with huge aftermarket support and popular specifically for aftermarket.

[Linas.P]

@H3XME I was just thinking more about the tdi-tuning option and concluded that it does not address the problem with how the car drivers to begin with and further probably cannot be true. I wish it would be as simple as paying £399... And I understand you not trying to market it to me or care either way... but I just thought with first hand experience with the car I will put some thought in it (or rather why it would not work).

To begin with the hesitation on RC200t is an issue with throttle response and isn't really specifically about the power. It is more to do with gearbox ECU (or GCU) set-up and secondly throttle response delay set for amuricans (the "unintended" acceleration non-sense)... I am not sure where this is set, ECU or independent control unit. Now I will call tdi-tuning box a "cheater box" going forward, because that is what it is - it is not "true" chip tuning, but rather just a box which intercepts sensor signals and manipulates them (and ECU) to believe conditions are different e.g. shows "more air" to trick ECU in sending more fuel.

So the issue number 1 - what the unit tdi-tuning is offering isn't addressing the issue at all. They trying to give more power, maybe potentially save some fuel. I may have said that car "feels" under-powered (which it is), but first and foremost the issue is how it is delivered and not overall lack of it. IS250 has less power, but it delivers it better for example. And yes it sounds like more power should be equal to better acceleration and response, but as I said - without addressing throttle response and gearing I doubt extra power would make any difference. Sure it would probably get better 1/4th mile times, but that is irrelevant for "daily drivability".

The solution here is specifically removing unnecessary delays in gearbox and ECU (which is possible). Obviously, cheater-box cannot do anything with gearbox at all, but even when it comes to ECU I really doubt it could affect throttle response. The only possible way I can imagine they would be tackling that is tricking ECU in thinking that accelerator is say 50% when it is actually only 25%. On paper that sounds like it would make accelerator twice as sensitive, but in practice the delay is still there - so if there is say 1s delay before car starts accelerating... the only difference is that after 1 second you will get from 0% to 100% throttle in half-time. Throttle on RC200t is already like on/off switch, so this would make it even worse.

The second issue is whenever they can actually make more power. In most basic terms more fuel + more air = more powahhhh!... Fuel is easy - Toyota being Toyota won't use even 50% duty-cycle on injectors (and besides 8AR-FTS has additional port injectors) and I am sure fuel pump won't be 100% either, so there is plenty room for adding fuel, but the question is - where they get more air?

Now little detour in terms of air... on turbo engines you kind of have 3 basic option:

• small turbo - good response, good low-end torque, but no top-end power and overall smaller power.
• large turbo - poor response, no low-end torque, but loads of power at very end.
• twin-tubro or variable geometry - good on both low-end and top-end, but more expensive.

Now 8AR-FTS uses twin-scroll turbo... and what twin scroll does is simply separates exhaust pulses for more efficiency. Lexus has opted for probably smallest twin scroll turbo in existence, so the engine has good response (for a turbo engine), but has no top-end at all power past 4400RPM. So in short - this turbo already gives all air it has at ~4000RPM... so where the extra air is coming from?

For them to claim 60+ HP they need to get more air from somewhere and this is not happening on stock turbo. Now 2.0L T engines can certainly have more power, M139 does 416HP, but it does make almost double the boost compared to AR8-FTS. Either way what this tells me is for this engine to make more power it needs more air, for more air it needs more boost... and for more boost it needs bigger/different turbo.

To simplify my conclusion - the power on this engine is limited by how much air it has and not by how much fuel it injects. Cheater-box can make engine to think it has more air and make it to inject more fuel, but it cannot physically get more air into the engine. If there is no more air, then there will be no more power.

Final thing... they can reduce the fuel consumption. The reason why my car (and most turbo petrols) are so inefficient is because more boost, means more heat and that means increased risk of pre-ignition (knock). To avoid it they just dump fuel (runs right) which is inefficient. So the cheater box can lean out the fuel, but misreporting the o2 sensor or lamda and potentially masking knock sensors. Yes car will run leaner and burn less fuel, but at the same time it will eventually knock itself out. Not good for reliability.

.....

final final thing - that is why I am saying that the only way is really an engine swap or different car. Yes 8AR-FTS can be made to make more power by good chip tuning and turbo upgrade, but we talking fairly low volume custom tune and R&D. After that it can potentially go to 300-350HP on stock internals, but by this time the cost of tuning will be similar to throwing 3.5L V6 in it or even small V8 - which would be inherently less stressed, more reliable, more responsive and probably more efficient engine.

[H3XME]

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

@H3XME I was just thinking more about the tdi-tuning option and concluded that it does not address the problem with how the car drivers to begin with and further probably cannot be true. I wish it would be as simple as paying £399... And I understand you not trying to market it to me or care either way... but I just thought with first hand experience with the car I will put some thought in it (or rather why it would not work).

To begin with the hesitation on RC200t is an issue with throttle response and isn't really specifically about the power. It is more to do with gearbox ECU (or GCU) set-up and secondly throttle response delay set for amuricans (the "unintended" acceleration non-sense)... I am not sure where this is set, ECU or independent control unit. Now I will call tdi-tuning box a "cheater box" going forward, because that is what it is - it is not "true" chip tuning, but rather just a box which intercepts sensor signals and manipulates them (and ECU) to believe conditions are different e.g. shows "more air" to trick ECU in sending more fuel.

So the issue number 1 - what the unit tdi-tuning is offering isn't addressing the issue at all. They trying to give more power, maybe potentially save some fuel. I may have said that car "feels" under-powered (which it is), but first and foremost the issue is how it is delivered and not overall lack of it. IS250 has less power, but it delivers it better for example. And yes it sounds like more power should be equal to better acceleration and response, but as I said - without addressing throttle response and gearing I doubt extra power would make any difference. Sure it would probably get better 1/4th mile times, but that is irrelevant for "daily drivability".

The solution here is specifically removing unnecessary delays in gearbox and ECU (which is possible). Obviously, cheater-box cannot do anything with gearbox at all, but even when it comes to ECU I really doubt it could affect throttle response. The only possible way I can imagine they would be tackling that is tricking ECU in thinking that accelerator is say 50% when it is actually only 25%. On paper that sounds like it would make accelerator twice as sensitive, but in practice the delay is still there - so if there is say 1s delay before car starts accelerating... the only difference is that after 1 second you will get from 0% to 100% throttle in half-time. Throttle on RC200t is already like on/off switch, so this would make it even worse.

The second issue is whenever they can actually make more power. In most basic terms more fuel + more air = more powahhhh!... Fuel is easy - Toyota being Toyota won't use even 50% duty-cycle on injectors (and besides 8AR-FTS has additional port injectors) and I am sure fuel pump won't be 100% either, so there is plenty room for adding fuel, but the question is - where they get more air?

Now little detour in terms of air... on turbo engines you kind of have 3 basic option:

• small turbo - good response, good low-end torque, but no top-end power and overall smaller power.
• large turbo - poor response, no low-end torque, but loads of power at very end.
• twin-tubro or variable geometry - good on both low-end and top-end, but more expensive.

Now 8AR-FTS uses twin-scroll turbo... and what twin scroll does is simply separates exhaust pulses for more efficiency. Lexus has opted for probably smallest twin scroll turbo in existence, so the engine has good response (for a turbo engine), but has no top-end at all power past 4400RPM. So in short - this turbo already gives all air it has at ~4000RPM... so where the extra air is coming from?

For them to claim 60+ HP they need to get more air from somewhere and this is not happening on stock turbo. Now 2.0L T engines can certainly have more power, M139 does 416HP, but it does make almost double the boost compared to AR8-FTS. Either way what this tells me is for this engine to make more power it needs more air, for more air it needs more boost... and for more boost it needs bigger/different turbo.

To simplify my conclusion - the power on this engine is limited by how much air it has and not by how much fuel it injects. Cheater-box can make engine to think it has more air and make it to inject more fuel, but it cannot physically get more air into the engine. If there is no more air, then there will be no more power.

Final thing... they can reduce the fuel consumption. The reason why my car (and most turbo petrols) are so inefficient is because more boost, means more heat and that means increased risk of pre-ignition (knock). To avoid it they just dump fuel (runs right) which is inefficient. So the cheater box can lean out the fuel, but misreporting the o2 sensor or lamda and potentially masking knock sensors. Yes car will run leaner and burn less fuel, but at the same time it will eventually knock itself out. Not good for reliability.

.....

final final thing - that is why I am saying that the only way is really an engine swap or different car. Yes 8AR-FTS can be made to make more power by good chip tuning and turbo upgrade, but we talking fairly low volume custom tune and R&D. After that it can potentially go to 300-350HP on stock internals, but by this time the cost of tuning will be similar to throwing 3.5L V6 in it or even small V8 - which would be inherently less stressed, more reliable, more responsive and probably more efficient engine.

I understand your points, BUT who says the car is getting already a maximum amount of air? You can simply throw on an intake, which may not even be needed and what the "cheater box" does is increasing the pressure that's in the actuator. It's fairly simple. Most cars with small turbos run something like 5-7PSi. The turbo on this car is capable of 17psi but it may be restricted by either actuator which has a spring that maxes out at 5-7psi unless it's electronic OR not having enough air. Factory turbo cars can easily go up by 60bhp, even by using a "cheater box" just because the factory turbo pressure is never at its peak. Meaning, you can squeeze an extra couple of PSI before the actuator hits the limit. THAT will happen before the needs more air, hence only 50-60bhp increase.

I have no experience with TDI tuning in particular, but MJC custom remaps down in london offer a similar output, but the car actually does need to go to their shop. It's all about software. (Call them and ask) I am certain the throttle hesitation can be removed and gearbox could be tuned too. GT-R R35s and Porsche PDK transmission are often tuned for a similar reason. If I found myself having the same issues as you, I would definitely try it. Small price to pay for a completely different driving experience.

[Linas.P]

25 minutes ago, H3XME said:

MJC custom remaps down in london offer a similar output, but the car actually does need to go to their shop. It's all about software. Small price to pay for a completely different driving experience.

And with that I agree, point is the cost then becomes not £399. And as I said I know it is possible to remove the delay and change gearbox management. I think issue remains more principal, Lexus should not have this gutless engine even if that is just the case of tuning... and even when tuned let's say they find another 30hp which is more realistic than 60hp... it is still just 2.0L T which does not sound great, isn't really fast and is very uneconomical. 

If I just make quick comparison with RC350 - that thing does 60 in 5.4s... and that I consider fast. It is more economical and I imagine with minor exhaust mods can sound great... if Z350/70 or GTR can, then 3.5 V6 in Lexus can as well. I really never understood reason for RC200t existence, but now that I own it I understood it even less.

Have you actually tried IS200t/RC200t? If not... maybe would be good idea to do it when dealerships opens (provided you can find any for sale).

My understanding is that factory turbo is already on 17psi as indeed there is boost gauge in the car and it shows 1.2bar... which as it happens is exactly 17psi.

Even if less restrictive intake could help turbo to get bit of extra air, then again we are talking about more substantial mods than just connecting the box.

[H3XME]

17 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And with that I agree, point is the cost then becomes not £399. And as I said I know it is possible to remove the delay and change gearbox management. I think issue remains more principal, Lexus should not have this gutless engine even if that is just the case of tuning... and even when tuned let's say they find another 30hp which is more realistic than 60hp... it is still just 2.0L T which does not sound great, isn't really fast and is very uneconomical. 

If I just make quick comparison with RC350 - that thing does 60 in 5.4s... and that I consider fast. It is more economical and I imagine with minor exhaust mods can sound great... if Z350/70 or GTR can, then 3.5 V6 in Lexus can as well. I really never understood reason for RC200t existence, but now that I own it I understood it even less.

Have you actually tried IS200t/RC200t? If not... maybe would be good idea to do it when dealerships opens (provided you can find any for sale).

My understanding is that factory turbo is already on 17psi as indeed there is boost gauge in the car and it shows 1.2bar... which as it happens is exactly 17psi.

Even if less restrictive intake could help turbo to get bit of extra air, then again we are talking about more substantial mods than just connecting the box.

We can only wonder why they made this engine. Nothing we can do about it other than tune it to our requirements even though I AGREE people shouldn't have to do it, especially given its price when new. 

Again. I agree with that. VQ engines sound great and make decent power. My father has a 370Z and it is something i'd consider quite fast. Sounds crazy good with a backbox delete - GT-R R35 territory sound-wise. Lexus will sound similar too, my IS250 with HKS mufflers isn't far off. I'm booked in for secondary cat delete next week, so will post a video of the sound. I have high hopes.

17PSI just doesn't sound right. For example, Focus ST250 MK3 - 250bhp from the factory, 2.0l inline 4 and it runs something like 8-10PSI from the factory. REVO Stage 1 ups the boost to around 12 psi and you're looking closely to 300bhp. Given this RC200t engine is 86mm bore & 86mm stroke, it's just like the little 2.0l boxer engine that's in the GT86/BRZ. With a turbo kit and 7psi it's pushing around 300bhp.. it's a high compression engine though. 8AR-FTS has a 10.0:1 compression ratio.  So even though it should take more boost easily, 17 still doesn't seem right. Although, I'm not arguing like I know it, I'm just thinking out loud here and it does sound strange that this 86x86mm engine with 10.0:1 CR would be pushing only 240bhp with 17PSI.. this is why I think it's a lot less.

It's interesting. I'd like to see more places tune this engines so we can all learn from it, but given the very very limited production even across other Lexus models it's probably not gonna happen for a long time. These aren't the kind of cars that people buy to modify..

[Linas.P]

Obviously, if the gauge inside shows it as 1.2bar/17psi - it does not mean it actually is 17psi... it may as well be showing alcohol content in yogurt. But that is the only reference I have without actually going on dyno and attaching dedicated pressure gauge and checking it.

And below is exactly that. I am not saying it cannot be modified, I am not saying that I don't like car modifications in general... just that majority of the people (myself included) do not buy these cars to modify them... hence the aftermarket is as well non-existent. 

4 hours ago, H3XME said:

aren't the kind of cars that people buy to modify..

[H3XME]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Obviously, if the gauge inside shows it as 1.2bar/17psi - it does not mean it actually is 17psi... it may as well be showing alcohol content in yogurt. But that is the only reference I have without actually going on dyno and attaching dedicated pressure gauge and checking it.

And below is exactly that. I am not saying it cannot be modified, I am not saying that I don't like car modifications in general... just that majority of the people (myself included) do not buy these cars to modify them... hence the aftermarket is as well non-existent. 

Try plugging in an OBD module to and connect it to your app on the phone. You can find out a lot through there. Depends on the car and sensors but I'd be surprised if the ECU didn't know what pressure the turbine is building on this car. You might be able to use that as a boost gauge.. just out of curiosity.

[Linas.P]

Yes... true I can try using OBD2, but at the same time I would expect that gauge to reflect information it receives from ECU.

What I am saying I would expect OBD2 and gauge readings to match.

[ColinBarber]

17 psi is correct.

[Linas.P]

Yes, I know that is officially what it says everywhere. I guess because some chip tuning companies are claiming extra power by just chipping the ECU, then the questions comes where they get the extra power from and speculation is .... that 17psi is the maximum what turbo can do, but not necessarily what it actually does from factory.

My opinion... I think it boost to 17psi and that is all the little turbo can do... and that chip tuning companies may be not exactly realistic with the claims.

[hondansxr]

omg i was hoping to get one of these (rc200t ) as i have a gs450h facelift 2008/58 model but i might leave it now a fter reading this ....  what a shame as look at it .... oh well back to the search   then ...

 

[NemesisUK]

Don't go on other's opinions!

Go test drive one for yourself and make your own mind up

[Linas.P]

As above - everyone should try and decide for themselves. A lot depends what you want from the car and what are your expectations. Although coming from GS450h I would have low expectations - RC  both 200t and 300h are exactly opposite compared GS450h. In GS is kind of floaty and steering is not very precise, but has loads of power and is very smooth.

RC is comfortable, well built and drop dead gorgeous car, but "sports" coupe it isn't. It does handle very well and I cannot say it is "all show and no go", but the way it goes leaves a lot to be desired.

I am still very salty that Lexus never brought RC350 to UK - that one has performance to match the appearance, but in UK we have no choice. 

[Las Palmas]

8 hours ago, Linas.P said:

As above - everyone should try and decide for themselves. A lot depends what you want from the car and what are your expectations. Although coming from GS450h I would have low expectations - RC  both 200t and 300h are exactly opposite compared GS450h. In GS is kind of floaty and steering is not very precise, but has loads of power and is very smooth.

RC is comfortable, well built and drop dead gorgeous car, but "sports" coupe it isn't. It does handle very well and I cannot say it is "all show and no go", but the way it goes leaves a lot to be desired.

I am still very salty that Lexus never brought RC350 to UK - that one has performance to match the appearance, but in UK we have no choice. 

Honda NSX is what you need? Does not look bad and supposedly more reliable than Ferrari with most of the qualities it seems you are looking for. Have not tried one but find they look nice as well as the one you do not like from Lexus.

[Linas.P]

50 minutes ago, Las Palmas said:

Honda NSX is what you need? Does not look bad and supposedly more reliable than Ferrari with most of the qualities it seems you are looking for. Have not tried one but find they look nice as well as the one you do not like from Lexus.

No, it only has 2 seats - what I need is large comfortable and practical GT coupe, like BMW 6-series coupe/convertible.

That is probably what I should have gone for. Sure it is not as reliable as Lexus, but it has room for 4, it has large boot, it is 2 doors and coupe and it has engine which does not totally suck.

[hondansxr]

so i have plumbed for the 300h as a cruiser weekends away and wife using it for work in week ....

your right not as fast as the 450h but way more precise ..and in real world driving (speed cameras and smart(not) motorways ) it makes more sence tax is 30 compaired to 25 per month and fuel is 50mpg comp to 32 so.. hey howe

[Linas.P]

Looks beautiful, but that is pretty much describes the car... I don't think anyone would be surprised about it or disagree. It is elegant looking coupe and I especially like it in black and dark rose seats (RC-F seats are little bit too bright red).

It is true that there are far too many speed cameras and roads themselves are quite terrible, but it just makes it more important for me to have the car which could put the smile on your face when you finally find the rare opportunity to enjoy it.

Sadly, that is exactly what RC200t is lacking (and 300h even more). I do agree they are decent for just cruising around in traffic and within increasingly ridiculous limits, but what I want to get in sports/GT car is exactly that - know that I can enjoy it when there is an opportunity.

[Linas.P]

Just found a fitting video to show what I think about RC200t and why exactly is is such a bad engine (to be fair I kind of knew it, but In UK we simply just don't have another choice!):

 

[Linas.P]

So just to conclude this thread and my ownership experience... 

The car was gone for some time now, so I can reflect on it little bit better. As I mentioned before this purchase made financial sense - I got it cheap, it had all options and now used cars prices went up. So I sold it with fair bit of profit, which is frankly unheard of on used cars and in private sales.

To summarise the positives - Lexus RC as a model is amazing car which had a lot of potential (if Lexus would have played it right), the cars which gets folding rear seats are surprisingly practical for coupe, built quality and materials are class above competition, it is rare, unique and as such could easily be parked next to £100k 911 or BMW 8-Series and not look out of place. 

In terms of negatives is nothing new - great car ruined by terrible engine options, both RC300h and 200t are just not acceptable, if anything latter being even worse. 300h is at least fuel efficient and cheaper on road tax, so for somebody commuting in the car who does not care how car drives and just wants nice car, it is okey option. RC200t on other hand is just unacceptable. Neither fast nor efficient - I do understand why they are not popular, because they don't shine in any area.

On some small niggly bits, Lexus seems to have lifted all interior from IS, that is nothing new... I just expected it to be slightly updated and adapted for coupe. Sadly it seems Lexus didn't bother inventing anything and it is a bit dated for 2016 MY and to my surprise for more expensive car it is actually even more cut down compared to IS. I feel Lexus probably should have used equipment options from NX, because both RC and NX are sort of step above IS in model range.

Then we have usual pointless Lexus limitations which I never understood but they are common - F-Sport can't have DCC, Premier can't have F-Sport dials, nor rose leather seats, car comes with LKA, but only warning without steering assist, it has RTCA, but not old and simple BSM, which is only option in Premier despite being technology from like 2003. Seems to me like Lexus could have added option of "safety systems" for £1500 and added all the bits as a package. Added "convenience pack" with electric closing boot and passenger memory seat (to be fair memory seat should have been standard, considering it was standard on IS). Seems like options list is just not well thought through and doesn't make sense. But overall this last section is minor and not something that adds or removes from ownership experience. I still think that Lexus should have offered RC350 instead or at least together with RC200t, I can live with all the small issues, but not with that engine. 

Overall, I didn't even sold the car because I hated the engine, I sold it 1# because I didn't drive it anymore and 2# because it made amazing financial sense. With money in the bank and more of it I now have freedom to choose again. It was just convenient time to exit from my mistake with no loses and actual profit, so I didn't want to miss the opportunity. I must admit it was little bit sad to see it go as it was in perfect condition and there are not many cars in the market which can offer so much for under £20k.

My recommendation - if you want RC which actually drives, then go for RC-F, if you want RC just for looks go for RC300h, avoid RC200t. As well consider cars before 2018 because of the tax (if you reading it in 2025, then go for RC-F once added tax expires after 5 years). Avoid cars with standard audio at any cost unless you are deaf. Sunroof is great, but robs amazing amount of headroom. It is car for 2 people, so don't expect to use rear seats.