Oops - what have I done! Bought RC200t

[paulrnx]

When I had my IS200t I thought the engine was fine but I didn't like the gearbox. Too many changes were way too abrupt, gearbox was slow to react in kickdown - almost as if it couldn't decide what gear to change into, and it was never that smooth. I used to drive around this by using the paddles and Sport mode and the other mode (Power, can't quite remember). Certainly not a patch on a ZF gearbox. Poor integration of the engine and gearbox I think. As you've said.

[Linas.P]

I mean if just for commuting - it is not terrible, rather good actually. Only the fuel consumption is exceptionally bad.

But who buys 2 doors sports coupe "just for commuting". So I would summarise by saying that RC200t in particular is not great car for intended purpose. RC300h is just a commuter car in fancy shape, so I guess as long as that is communicated clearly by Lexus (which it definitely isn't) RC300h actually fit's is purpose just fine. 

7 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

 I didn't like the gearbox. Too many changes were way too abrupt, gearbox was slow to react in kickdown - almost as if it couldn't decide what gear to change into, and it was never that smooth.

The same gearbox is fitted to RC350 and very similar RC-F, both are fine. Meaning it is not the gearbox which is an issue. The issue is an engine which has very narrow power band. And yes you right, it never knows which gear to select, because they are very close ratio gears and there are so many of them (8). However if engine would have wider effective power-band then this would not matter and gearbox would not need to be such a close ratio.

[paulrnx]

I did read the whole thread too. You were pretty damning about the car you'd bought so I think you ought to expect a bit of stick on that basis alone. The fact that you'd previously rubbished people who had chosen the 200t drivetrain just made it worse and we were itching to tell you I suppose. Enjoy the car though. It looks a corker. Hopefully the powertrain will grown on you. I agree re consumption - my IS200t had terrible fuel consumption for shorter journeys, worse than a 2014 IS250 F-Sport.

[paulrnx]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I mean if just for commuting - it is not terrible, rather good actually. Only the fuel consumption is exceptionally bad.

But who buys 2 doors sports coupe "just for commuting". So I would summarise by saying that RC200t in particular is not great car for intended purpose. RC300h is just a commuter car in fancy shape, so I guess as long as that is communicated clearly by Lexus (which it definitely isn't) RC300h actually fit's is purpose just fine. 

The same gearbox is fitted to RC350 and very similar RC-F, both are fine. Meaning it is not the gearbox which is an issue. The issue is an engine which has very narrow power band. And yes you right, it never knows which gear to select, because they are very close ratio gears and there are so many of them (8). However if engine would have wider effective power-band then this would not matter and gearbox would not need to be such a close ratio.

When I say gearbox, I mean the gearbox itself, the mapping, the integration with the engine, installation in the car, everything. I don't doubt the gearbox itself can be ok. Still not a patch on a ZF box though, in my experience at least. It feels like Lexus rushed the 200t out and didn't do enough work to properly integrate the engine and gearbox and fine tune the mapping. As someone has suggested Linas, I'd definitely consider getting a dealership to take yours back to factory default settings and then see if it gets better as it 'learns'.

[Linas.P]

29 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

I did read the whole thread too. You were pretty damning about the car you'd bought so I think you ought to expect a bit of stick on that basis alone. The fact that you'd previously rubbished people who had chosen the 200t drivetrain just made it worse and we were itching to tell you I suppose. Enjoy the car though. It looks a corker. Hopefully the powertrain will grown on you. I agree re consumption - my IS200t had terrible fuel consumption for shorter journeys, worse than a 2014 IS250 F-Sport.

I was indeed pretty damning and rightly so. I looked at the information available for me and just "on paper" concluded that 8AR-FTS does not look like improvement over 4GR-FSE. There were many (or at least few) who insisted that 4GR-FSE is just outdated design and 8AR-FTS is much more modern and better engine. I didn't believe that, but to be honest at times I thought "maybe it is not as bad and I am just wrong". Well now I have it and it turns out I wasn't wrong...

Again - if not for IS250 being written-off I would probably drive it to this day and could not commit to upgrade, firstly because I wanted to stay with the brand and secondly because Lexus does not sell any cars which I consider upgrade over mk2 IS250. Yes there are RC-F and LC, but they are pretty exclusive cars. GS450/GS-F are as well an upgrade, but I want coupe. When I came to buying RC my options were as follows - RC300h with 39,000 miles for £26,999 or RC200t  with 59,000 miles "listed" for £18k (and I paid even less). I completely agree that 300h is more sensible choice from the two, but not for over £10k more.

So in the end of the day that was the only decision I could have made at that point and considering how much I pad I can still reverse this deal and pretty much comeback on my money, the only problem - there is nothing else of this type to buy for ~£15-17k.

[noby76]

On 11/3/2020 at 1:25 PM, Linas.P said:

 there is nothing else of this type to buy for ~£15-17k.

beg to differ.. quick search on autotrader returns countless results 4 series's, E classes, A5's, Infiniti's, Gen 2 IS250's  heck even XK jag's  all coupe's both petrol or diesel's.  6 and 8 cylinders and all were by passed for a 4 cylinder which was slated by the same person and to make matters worse £17,000.00 was parted away with just for the sheer looks and nothing else not even how it drove ..

and that was me thinking my Mrs. was terrible with money. the world never ceases to amaze me 😄

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, noby76 said:

beg to differ.. quick search on autotrader returns countless results 4 series's, E classes, A5's, Infiniti's, Gen 2 IS250's  heck even XK jag's  all coupe's both petrol or diesel's. 

It is funny you said that as incidentally today I have spent nearly 3 hours in AT, searching what I can replace my RC with - if you want to check this is my particular search criteria which is 56 pages long then help yourself -https://bit.ly/2TVHmM2 Just to note IS250 is non starter - 4 doors. A5 is non starter - diesel/FWD. The rests are good shouts and I have considered them all many times over.

Point is there are 154 BMW's, 16 MBs, 3 Infinity, 1 Maserati and 1 Jaguars in search and all of of them are arguably worse cars. Yes many of them have better engines, but the engine is just one of many things which makes the car "whole", very important one, but still just one of many things.

If I go into more details within BMW there are 2 models in particular which I consider - BMW 435i, BMW 640i/650i/640d. For the same money (I actually set it to £20k) BMW 435i will be 2 years older, have more miles and their interior is outright nasty - it is just so basic and boring that I could not stand it. BMW 6-Series I have considered carefully (even when I bought my car), but the only model which makes sense is 640d.. and I am not fan of diesel, further they are very common and rather "dull" looking cars. 650i I think is the car which would be most suitable and would make me happiest, but to be honest RC just feels more modern (technology in BMW 6 is ~2010). So I could replace "current" Lexus with EOL BMW- not great!

16 MBs are all EOL last gen E400 models (few CLs which are even older) - they just feels extremely dated ~ 2008 and not comparable to Lexus. Ugly inside and outside.

Infinity is just more glittery type of Nissan - disgusting cars, I could still swallow outside, but inside looks bad.

Maserati and Jaguar - in both cases old 2003 models, which are obsolete - having one is looking for trouble.

All above would not be reliable.

In short - I have done short search, I have done long search I have repeated them many times and under £20k there is nothing to choose. Some cars have better engines, some cars are faster, but as a package they are all worse.

 

 

[J Henderson]

How about Merc CLS?
Granted, it's technically a 4-door saloon and most of them are diesels, but I think 2014+ AMG trim cars look great, especially in black. [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

[dutchie01]

On 11/3/2020 at 1:51 PM, Linas.P said:

But who buys 2 doors sports coupe "just for commuting". So I would summarise by saying that RC200t in particular is not great car for intended purpose. RC300h is just a commuter car in fancy shape, so I guess as long as that is communicated clearly by Lexus (which it definitely isn't) RC300h actually fit's is purpose just fine. 

Plenty of people buy a sports coupe or convertible just for commuting. With todays traffic ( well maybe not now covid) it is virtually impossible to use the big engines in high horsepower cars. City driving, trafficjams, trafficlights etc. Nothing more pathetic than the huracans and murcielagos you see on the internet in london or monaco. These cars never leave 2nd gear... Anyway, fine example is the best selling mercedes coupe and convertible in Holland.. the C180 with a 156hp engine and 9 secs accelleration. In that light the 200t is not bad at all?

 

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Anyway, fine example is the best selling mercedes coupe and convertible in Holland.. the C180 with a 156hp engine and 9 secs accelleration. In that light the 200t is not bad at all?

I think in that light RC300h is certainly a better car... RC200t just has no purpose really. In my case it was £10k+ cheaper so that was the main reason to choose between the two.

I have as well mentioned the same in "IS/RC/GS discontinued" topic - if Lexus would release IS/RC200h it would be massive success, it would be arguably awful car but there is huge market for "new cheap luxury cars" and people who do not care about how they drive (woman in particular). They just want fancy looking cars as cheap as possible.

Actually, you can fairly say that I am in this category (because I choosen 200t>300h because of the price), but I am in this category not by choice, but because Lexus does not give me other other options. In BMW range I would have 440i/435i and equivalent car in Lexus range would be RC350 - but Lexus just won't sell it. This is repetition again - but then I only have choice between RC200t or RC-F and neither of them are where I want to be.

[paulrnx]

Come on Linas, get out there and keep looking at your car. Keep driving it too. Eventually you might even like it. Live for the moment and enjoy the car you have chosen to buy.

If I had 17k to spend on a 2 door coupe I’d be driving a Cayman. I’d probably pay 14k leaving me 3k towards the increased running costs. It would be older and higher mileage obviously but it would be much more fun and would bring a smile to my face every single time I drove it.

[Linas.P]

I need 4 seats... so that takes several options out - like Cayman. I would probably go for older 911 (996 or 997, sadly 993 are crazy expensive nowadays) - as that is not only good to drive but you can call it "investment car". But in the end of the day I could only own one car so it has to be compromise and I just cannot afford to commute in 911.

As for changing it, this is just theoretical exercise - I know realistically there are no options, I just made assumption today that lets say I can sell it for £17k (unlikely to find buyer for 200t) and checked what alternatives exists - to be fair not very much. 435i is just too common and interior is too basic, as well for £17k it means older cars ~2013 and ~80k miles. In Lexus that is not an issue, but 80k miles BMW does not sound too good. BMW 6 - again 2012 cars, interior little bit nicer, bur technology is literally 2010. Yes it was best in 2010, but by 2016 even Lexus had better. So although they have better engines, that are still overall downgrades. And I would not be able to sell the car for private buyer for cash anyway. Dealers would offer more like £14k PX, and that means you as well have to PX with them - nobody just gives 14k cash.

Finally, there isn't much where I can drive it nowadays and even when I can I could no say that I enjoy it. But it is "okey" commuter - at least I don't feel embarrassed driving it to work. Nobody knows it is 2.0t with massive fuel consumption 😁

[Vlady]

Linas, did you chip your RC200t? I can't remember if it was discussed by you previously.

It is a turbo engine so you should be able to add to it 40-60bhp which should make the car much faster.

[noby76]

11 hours ago, paulrnx said:

Come on Linas, get out there and keep looking at your car. Keep driving it too. Eventually you might even like it. Live for the moment and enjoy the car you have chosen to buy.

If I had 17k to spend on a 2 door coupe I’d be driving a Cayman. I’d probably pay 14k leaving me 3k towards the increased running costs. It would be older and higher mileage obviously but it would be much more fun and would bring a smile to my face every single time I drove it.

And this was the point i was trying to make. sooo many cars out there you could buy for between 10k to 17k and i would do the same. spend around 10 to 12k on the car then use 5k for warranty. new reg on a car does not always mean good to drive. 

[Linas.P]

No I didn't... In fact I am not sure 40-60hp is realistic, 242hp for 2.0L is already "cooking hard", getting it to ~260 maybe realistic, but I don't believe that 300 is possible without aftermarket ECU and different turbo. What I know however is that gearbox can be "chiped" to remove ~1s initial hesitation from stand still and delay in kick-down. Making the car ~1s faster 0-60 and more responsive. 

But to be honest I cannot complain about the car acceleration - it is more about how it does it. I guess it would be right to say that I am simply allergic to patchy and unpredictable acceleration of small volume turbo engines. Power band is very short, there is initial delay and there are multiple dips when tiny turbo runs out of the boost and multiple gears changes.

To somewhat fix it only chip'ing won't be enough, as I said I think it would need different turbo - perhaps even twin-turbo or twin-scroll set-up. So I could have two different power bands - keep one down-low ~under 3500RPM, and other one above 3500RPM - basically extending usable engine power band. But this is not like common 2-3L diesel engines which can be done in 2 minutes by simply loading new "map" for £150. This would be dedicated and involved work for the car which has shipped 103 units in UK. All in all this whole shebang would need to be properly engineered and would costs at least £3000-£4000. For such money I am better off engine swapping the beast, but I just feel car is not worth it.

1 hour ago, noby76 said:

And this was the point i was trying to make. sooo many cars out there you could buy for between 10k to 17k and i would do the same. spend around 10 to 12k on the car then use 5k for warranty. new reg on a car does not always mean good to drive. 

You again just missing the point, or ignoring it. No - there are no cars which would fit my requirements. I already said that it can't have 4 doors, it can't have 2 seats, can't be diesel or FWD, on top of that it is my sole car so it has to be "somewhat" practical and reliable. This means it cannot be Jaguar or Maserati... or old Porsche... or 120k miles BMW M3 E92. 

This reduces your list by ~90%. 10% of cars left may have better engine, but are otherwise worse cars overall e.g. BMW 435i, MB E400, BMW 640/650i. And yes indeed there are cars which could do both - but then they are not under £20k... more like £30-60k. My alternatives are basically these - RC-F, BMW 8-Series, new BMW 4-Series 440i, 2016+ MB E450+ and C43+. To my disappointment I even have to excluded LC500/500h and BMW i8 because they literally have no boot.

And finally I am not just being "difficult" - I am simply not asking for advice. I already know what are my options and literally yesterday I looked to all cars which are sold between £10-20k in UK, all of them!

[paulrnx]

32 minutes ago, noby76 said:

And this was the point i was trying to make. sooo many cars out there you could buy for between 10k to 17k and i would do the same. spend around 10 to 12k on the car then use 5k for warranty. new reg on a car does not always mean good to drive. 

I agree. Of course, cars that cost £45k new still have the running costs of a £45k car despite costing say £15k to buy now

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

I agree. Of course, cars that cost £45k new still have the running costs of a £45k car despite costing say £15k to buy now

That is why I would rather have £25k RC350, than £25k RC-F.

[paulrnx]

45 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No I didn't... In fact I am not sure 40-60hp is realistic, 242hp for 2.0L is already "cooking hard", getting it to ~260 maybe realistic, but I don't believe that 300 is possible without aftermarket ECU and different turbo. What I know however is that gearbox can be "chiped" to remove ~1s initial hesitation from stand still and delay in kick-down. Making the car ~1s faster 0-60 and more responsive. 

But to be honest I cannot complain about the car acceleration - it is more about how it does it. I guess it would be right to say that I am simply allergic to patchy and unpredictable acceleration. Power band is very short, there is initial delay and there are multiple dips when tiny turbo runs out of the boost and  multiple gears changes.

To somewhat fix it only chinning won't be enough, as I said I think it would need different turbo - perhaps even twin-turbo or twin-scroll set-up. So I could have two different power bands - keep one down-low ~under 3500RPM, and other one above 3500RPM - basically extending usable engine power band. But this is not like common 2-3L diesel engines which can be done in 2 minutes by simply loading new "map" for £150. This would be dedicated and involved work for the car which has shipped 103 units in UK. All in all this whole shebang would need to be properly engineered and would costs at least £3000-£4000. For such money I am better off engine swapping the beast, but I just feel car is not worth it.

You again just missing the point, or ignoring it. No - there are no cars which would fit my requirements. I already said that it can't have 4 doors, it can't have 2 seats, can't be diesel or FWD, on top of that it is my sole car so it has to be "somewhat" practical and reliable. This means it cannot be Jaguar or Maserati... or old Porsche... or 120k miles BMW M3 E92. 

This reduces your list by ~90%. 10% of cars left may have better engine, but are otherwise worse cars overall e.g. BMW 435i, MB E400, BMW 640/650i. And yes indeed there are cars which could do both - but then they are not under £20k... more like £30-60k. My alternatives are basically these - RC-F, BMW 8-Series, new BMW 4-Series 440i, 2016+ MB E450+ and C43+. To my disappointment I even have to excluded LC500/500h and BMW i8 because they literally have no boot.

And finally I am not just being "difficult" - I am simply not asking for advice. I already know what are my options and literally yesterday I looked to all cars which are sold between £10-20k in UK, all of them!

Linas, we need more detail from you. I can never work out why you mean what you say. You use so few words when you post. 😂👍

[Linas.P]

Just now, paulrnx said:

Linas, we need more detail from you. I can never work out why you mean what you say. You use so few words when you post. 😂👍

Yes but you need to consider I replied 2 different people above. 

And I generally consider all the options before I post, so just summarise what I have considered.

[paulrnx]

35 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes but you need to consider I replied 2 different people above. 

And I generally consider all the options before I post, so just summarise what I have considered.

I think what you tend to do is just state your opinion in ever more lengthy terms and then tell everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion that they are wrong. It’s ok for us to have different opinions, it’s one of the things that make the world a fascinating place. You clearly researched your purchase in detail and made a decision based on this. Which is a very sensible thing to do. I still think you made a bad choice based on your past history mind but this is my opinion. Doesn’t mean you are right and I’m wrong or vice versa.
 

I haven’t replied to too much of what you have said re the engine and gearbox in your car because we probably have different opinions on some things. Same opinions on others mind. You’ve mentioned that the v6 has more torque than the 200t but this isn’t the case in my experience. I’ve owned both a 2nd and 3rd generation IS250. I’ve also owned an IS200t and two IS300h. I’ve used all of them in much the same way on the same roads and same journey types.

My own experience is that the IS250, both  2nd and 3rd gen sound wonderful and are very smooth engines but they do lack torque and have to be revved above about 3500 ish rpm before there is any appreciable torque delivery from the engine. Lovely engines though and certainly no hardship in revving them out. I still get misty eyed about my 2006 IS250 SE-L even now.

The IS300h always feels to me that it hasn’t got much in the way of torque but this is I think more down the non-linear relation between throttle and delivery from the powertrain. Once you get over this a firm press of the accelerator does give strong performance. More so in Sport mode when it is obvious that there is more assistance from the Battery and motor.

the IS200t I had always felt like it had loads of torque. I didn’t like the gearbox and found that I’d often drive around manually changing gears but it had a lot of grunt and always felt considerably faster than both a 250 and a 300h in all conditions.

But these are my opinions based on my driving and my seat of the pants feel for these cars. Doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong, it’s just what I feel.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, paulrnx said:

1. and then tell everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion that they are wrong < and > Doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong, it’s just what I feel. < and > It’s ok for us to have different opinions, it’s one of the things that make the world a fascinating place.

2. You’ve mentioned that the v6 has more torque than the 200t but this isn’t the case in my experience. <and> My own experience is that the IS250, both  2nd and 3rd gen sound wonderful and are very smooth engines but they do lack torque and have to be revved above about 3500 ish rpm <and> the IS200t I had always felt like it had loads of torque.

3. The IS300h always feels to me that it hasn’t got much in the way of torque

1. I absolutely agree that different opinions could co-exist and it is strange that you feel this way, because I always try to note that this is just my opinion, and that it does not mean I am right and you are wrong. If you feel that way then perhaps I failed to made it clear somehow, but I just spent over 30 minutes reading my own comments and I am really struggling to understand where you get this impression. Further, after comparing our comments I can see that we actually agree on most of the things...

2. I don't want to copy dyno sheets, because they are not comparable, but what you will generally see with IS250 is that torque comes in pretty early on (2500RPM) and stays flat all the way to 6000RPM. Whereas on any 200t you will see it is coming in little bit later and not only having multiple dips, but as well it has little bit curve maximising ~3750RPM and then dropping down again. All that said - what you need to consider that dyno pulls are generally done in single gear, whereas in real-life you will go through multiple gears when accelerating - short "effective" power-band and shorter gears will only amplify the "patchiness" of 200t torque. Further IS250 really likes to be "revved out" the more you push it the better it behaves, 200t is completely opposite - it reaches it's peak quickly and then gear needs to change as revving it high is pointless, there are no top-end power in the engine.

Me claiming that 200t has less torque would be factually incorrect (260Nm vs 350Nm), what I said is that torque is instantly accessible in V6 and it makes it more useful. As well Torque on IS250 is directly correlated with your accelerator input and lineal (smooth), whereas on RC200t there seem to be no link - "car has mind of it's own".

3. 300h is even worse as it basically has 2 engines and there are two separate Torque/Power curves which overlaps, further CVT makes acceleration very efficient, but not very exciting. 

In summary, what I would say is probably very similar - my experience is based on my "pants feel" so you can consider this as just one of many perspective. However, some of what I have said is supported by dyno graphs as well e.g. that 200t has patchy torque curve, that 300h has noticeable a dip over between 1800-2500RPM and that 250 has very smooth and flat torque curve.

In my personal experience I found 200t to be most capable 40-90MPH  which I have already noted. Seems like gearing and engine torque works well if you floor it from 50+, however it is still not instant, car has to downshift like 4 gears, often gets it wrong and in UK 40-90 pull isn't even that practical. 

[paulrnx]

Off the top of my head you accused one poster of missing the point or ignoring you. I’m sure I could find more.

[Linas.P]

19 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

Off the top of my head you accused one poster of missing the point or ignoring you. I’m sure I could find more.

Because with that particular poster we had "long and rich discussion history", where I stated on multiple occasions that I have very specific criteria (which I made very clear) and I neither looking for advice nor his advise meets the clearly stated criteria.

Not repeating all the details again, if I say car must be coupe and I get advised to get Lexus IS250 mk3 then I think it is safe to say, that somebody either missed the point or have ignored it.

Finally, I pointed out several times that this thread is about my experience with RC200t, positives and negatives - that is all. It is not a plea for forum to advise me what should I get. Yes we can say that theoretically or objectively one car or the other would have been better fit for my needs, but it is off-topic... I am happy to participate and I do participate in this off-topic, but nevertheless it is just off-topic.

[royoftherovers]

I am delighted to note that you two are getting along extremely well.Congratulations to you both.

Now if one of you cares about Cadillac President T might be about to trade in ........:) 🙂

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

I am delighted to note that you two are getting along extremely well.Congratulations to you both.

Now if one of you cares about Cadillac President T might be about to trade in ........:) 🙂

Yeah... sadly "The Beast" doesn't meet my criteria - mainly the one where I expect to drive it myself and "few" others... 😁