Is300h

[Guest]

Hi I’m currently an owner of a 2015 is200t Fsport and I have been looking at potentially swapping for an is300h, as I would like a bit better fuel economy. How are the is300h on fuel economy I do mostly fast driving A roads to and from work? Or do you think it would be better for me to get my car mapped for better fuel economy ? How many people have had their is200t mapped? Have they had any issues after doing this?

I have also thought about the ct200h, how is the reliability of the hybrid system on the 300h/200h?

Any feedback will be appreciated.

[Linas.P]

"Bit better fuel economy" 😄 I am ex-owner of RC200t and I know that fuel economy is absolutely horrid - low 20s? RC-F with 5L V8 has better economy than my 2 litre rattle cannon. My biggest issue was not economy per say, but illogical gap between economy and actual performance - car performs like 2L, but consumes fuel like 5L.

Swapping for IS300h - yes that is great idea as far as fuel economy is concerned, as well eCVTs to my surprise are very nice to drive on "fast" A-roads. I honestly think that is where they feel the best, yet 300h are not great on motorways (not great fuel economy either), they unacceptably slow from stand-still (so I hate driving them in the city), but they handle very well in "fast" A-roads and even eCVT can be used for instant shifting in the corners - not bad at all. When it comes to economy you should be able to hit high 30's easily. I would say 32-38MPG is the range where you can expect the car to be in most normal driving conditions. Getting it below 32MPG... you need to deliberately try, above 38MPG - again people get 55MPG etc. but that is not normal, if you coast for 50 miles at 50MPH without ever touching accelerator then it is possible, but that is not normal driving. 

So yes - if fuel consumption is important then IS300h is good choice.. you will go from what I assume is 22-26MPG, to 32-38MPG. But you will have to accept car which is awfully slow.

Reliability - non-issue at all, if anything I suspect IS300h is far more reliable than 200t. CT200h... well try it for yourself and see, I consider this car to be "fun killer" - it is just so hopelessly boring and un-engaging that after 5 minutes driving it you will stop even trying. Terrible for A-road, definitely not the car you want if you at all interested in driving and by merely saying "fast" A-road I assume you are interested in driving, because it is you who make A-road fast or slow. In CT200h all roads will only be slow roads.

Remapping - they are not remappable and nobody has done it because it does not work. This would require entire thread of it's own, but let's just have a crash course on engine tuning for 200t. There are snake-oil sellers saying you can get IS200t up-to 308-340HP - absolute non-sense. Here is basics of how internal combustion engine works  - more air + more fuel = more power. 8AR-FTS engine is turbo engine with maximum turbo pressure of 1.2bar and this is what it delivers from factory. Because you have f-sport you can turn on context menu on the dash and see real-time turbo pressure... and what you will see is that under acceleration ~4k RPM it already blow 1.2bar. So to simplify it - this turbo can't deliver more air as it already delivers maximum pressure it could! And if we go back to our previous equation - no more air = no more power, no matter how much fuel you dump at the engine. This means you can't map car for much more power... sure custom map for the engine specifically tuned for your car on the dyno could give you maybe extra 10-15HP (260hp is about the range where similar engines are), but sad news Lexus ECU is locked and can't be tuned, so you don't have this option either. The interceptor type tuning like TDI Tuning is selling is literally a scam when it comes to IS200t, what they doing works for some German cars, because their engines are artificially tiered i.e. identical engine in Golf makes 200HP and in Audi A3 it makes 280HP. So they are able  to intercept certain engine sensors to trick the ECU into delivering higher power the engine is genuinely capable of getting. This does not work on 8AR-FTS, because it is already running at maximum power limited by the turbo it has.

Can they improve the economy then? Yes and no... basically the reason why turbo engines are so uneconomical is that as soon as you get turbo on boost it increase air temperature and pressure in the cylinders, this results in higher risk of knock (pre-detonation) and to combat it and to protect the engine the ECU just dumps the fuel (running "rich" with higher fuel to air ratio prevents knocking). Sure they can trim this fuel and actually reduce fuel consumption and even gain some power, but then this leaves your engine knocking under load/acceleration. 8AR-FTS obviously has knock sensor, so if ECU can't dump fuel it will reduce timing, that is the only other measure ECU can use to protect then engine, but it will make your car significantly less powerful. Now I assume they can intercept knock-sensor and let the engine destroy itself, but I hope they don't go that far as it will have obvious consequences (that is - rod going through the side of the block type).

Just to review all the options again - 8AR-FTS would need to be individually mapped (meaning your exact car and even specific fuel) to gain power (10-15HP max) and to maybe reduce fuel consumption a little bit. It is possible to balance it out and trim fuel maps correctly so it doesn't dump fuel excessively, but does not detonate either. But this is only possible with new ECU fuel map. This can't be done on Lexus ECU, because it is locked, so this is not an option. Piggy-back ECUs or interceptors don't work on this engine, because they are generic maps and they can't set perfect maps for different cars/fuel etc. The last option which would work - completely new aftermarket ECU (like Haltech, Link and other brands...) + dedicated professional tuning on dyno - yes that would work... but only the ECU costs £1000+ without the tuning. So is it really worth it for 15hp and and 5MPG? At this point I would say if you go aftermarket ECU route, you may as well want to consider new turbo and then realistically you can get this engine to 300hp, but then your fuel economy will be significantly worse.

I as well add - how ***** annoying is that we don't get IS350 in UK. Not only it would be far more fuel efficient, but it would be better driving, more powerful and better sounding car! Why Lexus?! 😁

[Guest]

Hi Linas 

Thanks for the reply and feedback, I currently get around 30mpg in the 200t so will like to hope that I would get 40+ out of a 300h, as per your feedback I think I will stay away from the ct200h, and stay away from a potential remap as I don’t really want to be ripped off plus I won’t be paying for an upgraded turbo or ecu, it’s a shame that car manufacturers build different variants for different markets, I’m guessing it due to emissions related, what did you move to from the rc200t? Was the reason because of fuel economy ?

[Linas.P]

30MPG is not bad at all. But I guess that is reasonable for A-road, doing around 60MPH. My driving was mostly city or motorway - in city I was getting 18-22MPG and even on motorway it is not great - sticking to exactly 70MPH indicated I would only get ~30MPG, it would go to 32, but as soon as there is little bit of congestion on motorway it would swiftly go down to 28.

The fuel consumption was really unacceptable, especially considering it's isn't really that sporty or fast... as I said I would get better economy on RC-F in like for like driving which is just mental to even think about. 

I sold it mainly because I work from home since covid began and will work for home now (no plans going back to office). The car just sat unused and I start worrying that Battery will die etc. at this point I thought "do I really need car" and considering £900+ for insurance and £235 for road tax + ~£500 + depreciation, I realised it will be cheaper for me to use taxi if I ever need it or rent a car from time to time. Spending like £3000 a year just to keep the car on the drive makes no sense.

And even then - even when I find the time to drive it, the car was not really that exciting to drive to justify all this cost. 

[Guest]

I bought my 2017 Advance with just under 8000 on the clock, set the computer and have left it since then, now on 31000 and according to the computer I am averaging 49.9 mpg over 23000 miles, I mainly do trips of around 60 miles on a mixture of roads including motorways and don’t find much difference to be honest, it’s best on A/ B roads but doesn’t really drop that much on motorways or around town, I came from a BMW435 petrol so the performance was a drop but it’s more than adequate 

[wharfhouse]

5 minutes ago, Steve vialls said:

Hi Linas 

Thanks for the reply and feedback, I currently get around 30mpg in the 200t so will like to hope that I would get 40+ out of a 300h, as per your feedback I think I will stay away from the ct200h, and stay away from a potential remap as I don’t really want to be ripped off plus I won’t be paying for an upgraded turbo or ecu, it’s a shame that car manufacturers build different variants for different markets, I’m guessing it due to emissions related, what did you move to from the rc200t? Was the reason because of fuel economy ?

Steve - unless you drive everywhere at max throttle then in normal day to day driving you will get high 40's from an IS 300h. I have now done over 60k miles in mine (purchased when it had 40K on it and has now done 103K miles) and my average over this time on the trip computer is around 48mpg. That is a good mix of driving with probably 50% being motorway and the rest split between A roads and towns/local. 

Looking at some details:

- Motorways - driving at an indicated 75 - 85mph (not harsh acceleration but keeping up with sensible flow of faster traffic) I achieve between 45 and 52 mpg (air temp and how many passengers/luggage I have) - also given the propensity of speed limited sections and road works on the motorways then mpg only gets better in these sections whereas with most ICE only cars it gets worse! Just been up to Oban, Scotland (from Berkshire) and back with two passengers and a lot of luggage - there on one tank of fuel, refilled and back on one tank of fuel - avg mpg an indicated 46mpg.

- A Roads - fast free flowing often will see over 50mpg if you "carry speed" and avoid too much harsh braking and acceleration - can often be more when speeds are in the 40 - 50 mph range (I've seen 60mpg at times over quite a few tens of miles)

- Local and around town - can see easily 50mpg+ if avoiding too much braking and acceleration

Regards air temperatures this has quite an impact on mpg. In winter mpg is always the worst and in very hot weather (with air con working hard) it can drop too. Best mpg is achieved when air temp around 20C as Battery is working well, engine temp maintained without heating cabin and air con not having to cool.

Regards how the car drives, then the only way to assess if it suits your needs/style is a test drive as it is different to a normal ICE/auto box. Personally I find it suits my needs perfectly for the sort of journeys I do but YMMV as some others have found.

 

[doog442]

8 hours ago, Steve vialls said:

Hi I’m currently an owner of a 2015 is200t Fsport and I have been looking at potentially swapping for an is300h, as I would like a bit better fuel economy. How are the is300h on fuel economy I do mostly fast driving A roads to and from work? Or do you think it would be better for me to get my car mapped for better fuel economy ? How many people have had their is200t mapped? Have they had any issues after doing this?

I have also thought about the ct200h, how is the reliability of the hybrid system on the 300h/200h?

Any feedback will be appreciated.

Lovely car the IS200t with a very capable engine. I was lucky enough to own one for two years. There are years of posts on the subject of IS300h fuel economy but I guess it really depends on your driving style. I had some impressive figures driving the IS200t like Miss Daisy but felt I was often missing the strengths of the car, so spent most of the time in Sport Mode. You'll lose some performance with the swap naturally.

Best of luck. 

 

[DBIZO]

2015 plate IS300h, 225/45/R17 rubber, with over 60k on the odo. I'm getting mid 40s mpg. Computer says around close to 47, but unless the trip metre is off, I'm calculating more like 44-45 mpg. That's against a rich mix of roads on thousands of miles, dominated by long-distance journeys into the country, so ultimately I end up with quite a bit of slow country and town driving too. My own target is keeping it close/above 47 mpg, falling slightly short for now, which is my fault.

I don't know what's fast for you, but on good As and Ms I tend to drive hard by UK standards, depending on conditions, in the 80-90 range. I want to say at that speed the car is probably getting around 40mpg with cruise control. If you don't use cruise control, your mileage will be considerably worse, 5-10%, because you're not applying optimal power, either slightly accelerating or decelerating imperceptibly until you realise and correct - wasting energy.

What I see is the car really hits a sweet spot in the 50-60 mph range. Unless the topology is really adverse, I get 50+ mpg there, and mid-high 40s around 70mph - again, cruise control is essential if you care about economy.

I've never seen better than 55 mpg from this car on any reasonable journey - driving home from the the petrol station 2 miles away with a charged Battery doesn't count. I've managed 54.6 mpg on 60 miles, mostly A/M, very little town either side. You'll need Eco mode, doing most of the way on cruise around 60, and no hard breaking or accelerating.

I know it's annoying to hear but it really does depend, not only on how you drive, but where you drive, including topology and road surface - I see major swings between routes.

[cadman2k]

IS300H - Just back from a road trip, 600 mile total, full mix of motorway (300 mile), A & B roads (300 mile) - Average on the computer 47.8 MPG 

Hope this helps

[paulrnx]

22 hours ago, Steve vialls said:

Hi I’m currently an owner of a 2015 is200t Fsport and I have been looking at potentially swapping for an is300h, as I would like a bit better fuel economy. How are the is300h on fuel economy I do mostly fast driving A roads to and from work? Or do you think it would be better for me to get my car mapped for better fuel economy ? How many people have had their is200t mapped? Have they had any issues after doing this?

I have also thought about the ct200h, how is the reliability of the hybrid system on the 300h/200h?

Any feedback will be appreciated.

I’ve owned four 3rd generation IS. Two 300h (2014 & 2019), a 2015 200t and a 2014 250.

I never got great economy from the 200t. From memory this ranged, over a full tank and measured from the trip computer, from 30 to 34. Occasionally I saw high 30’s but never anything starting with a 4.

The 2014 IS300H usually gave between 40 and 44 over a tankful again measured using the trip computer. Occasionally I saw 50+ on journeys where speeds were 30-50. I remember one 25 mile journey where I got 70+. Always ended up in the range 40 to 44 over a full tank though.

The 2019 300h was about 2 mpg better per tankful than the 2014 version I had. Some of this may be my driving but there is no doubt that the facelift IS300H cars have better power delivery with more assistance from the battery/motor. I’m sure outright power and torque is no different but the delivery is better which in my experience LED to better economy. Improvements made to the steering and suspension are also worthwhile with a bit more comfort but no loss of handling.

The IS250 economy was pants and almost always averaged no better than 30.

I’d reckon on you getting a good 10mpg better with an IS300H in like for like driving compared to your 200t. Possibly a bit more with a facelift car.

You will notice quite a big performance in performance so you’ll need to drive a few and determine whether this is a price worth paying for better economy.

Is better economy your #1 priority or does performance rank above this? I suspect from what you say that performance ranks high in what you want from a car.

They are great cars though. To be honest, I only swapped my 2019 IS because I’d had two bird strikes which cost a bit to replace various front grilles (front is very low), and a buckled 18” alloy wheel (many water filled potholes where I live) and catching the underside of the car on some raised ironworks on a new housing development. I came to the conclusion it was the wrong type of car for what I need given where I live and what I use the car for. Otherwise I’d have kept it.

I’ve gone on a bit, sorry, I reckon you’ll see a good 10mpg improvement and likely a bit more from a facelift car. You’ll lose some performance though. That said, there isn’t much wrong with an IS300H in Sport, especially a facelift version. Best way to tell a facelift version is they have no front fog lights. I think 😉

[paulrnx]

I think facelift cars are from 2017 Model Year onwards 

[Thackeray]

22 hours ago, Steve vialls said:

How are the is300h on fuel economy

The year round average seems to be about 44 mpg. The trip computer shows this optimistically at around 47-48 mpg. It's worse in winter, better in summer.

The website spritmonitor.de shows the following figures for the IS300h: You need to sign in to change litres/100km to mpg. This is pretty much in line with the examples of other people's experience above. You can check fuelly.com too but I think it has a smaller sample of cars.

[Alan305]

Our 2018 F Sport is300h was 43 mpg in winter and 46 mpg in summer. Mix of fair distances and urban on around 15,000 a year. NX is about 40 mpg winter, 42 mpg summer so far but needs a good few distance trips to get those averages.

[Paul Brooksbank]

I have the IS300h F Sport on a 2013 plate and to be honest, it's the best car I've ever had. I cannot agree that they're awfully slow, they're fast enough for anybody in their right mind. Mine is just as pleasing to drive as my previous Honda Civic and my wife's Mazda MX5, but I'm not looking to throw out around every bend. 

Economy wise, 38 mpg winter and 42 mpg summer and that's all urban driving, I've seen 56 on a run to St Albans on a quiet lockdown day and that was at an indicated 75 mph all the way.

[Linas.P]

56 minutes ago, Paul Brooksbank said:

they're fast enough for anybody in their right mind

This is very subjective statement. IS300h is great car in many ways, but fast it certainly isn't.

Lexus claims that nomenclature on their models i.e. 300 in the model name should mean performance equal to the power of NA 3L engine. IS300h is certainly not equivalent to the contemporary car with 3L engine from 2013 ... not even 2006.

What would be good examples? 2004 BMW 330i (3L I6 engine - N53B30) would be comparable naturally aspirated engine, making 268HP and providing acceleration of 6.1s 0-60. Competitor for mk3 IS would be 2011 BMW 330i which sadly moved to turbo charged 2L engine, but it kept nomenclature with model name 330i (referring to it being equivalent to 3L engine like Lexus), it has 248HP and 0-60 time of 5.4s. Even if we look at hybrids, then again BMW 330e PHEV despite having 2L engine 330e does 0-60 in 5.9s (again example of BMW correctly sticking to their nomenclature).

When I see "300" badge on the car I expect performance equivalent to 3L petrol engine - that is what Lexus claims themselves. BMW aside, we can look to Lexus own range for same model IS250 has 208HP 0-60 in 8s, IS350 has 306HP and 0-60 in 5.2s, so "300" has to fall somewhere in the middle i.e. ~257HP and ~6.6s 0-60. Lexus IS300h makes only 181HP and 0-60 in ~8.2s. So it is not me saying it is slow car, it is Lexus themselves miss-using their nomenclature and incorrectly advertising car to imply it is faster than it is.

If Lexus would have named exactly same car IS "200h" then I would have said fair enough! Because, they named it "300h" it is objective to say it is "slow" for what should have been performance equivalent to 3L engine...

Now whenever it is "fast enough", it is purely subjective and depends on what one consider "enough" for the car. If that would be generally accepted as enough, then we won't have IS-F, RC-F, GS450h or any other car which goes faster to 60 than 8s. Here again, if Lexus focus on their values like reliability and economy, it perhaps could be acceptable, but when you see marketing literature claiming it to be "sports saloon" with "irresistible/hart-racing performance" I think it is fair to say marketing is at very least disingenuous... if not deliberately false.  So IS300h is definitely slow for what should be "exceptional sports saloon". Note as well, this isn't generic description, so there is no confusion with IS350. This is UK product page and it specifically says "IS-Hybrid".

https://www.lexus.co.uk/car-models/is/

[Mincey]

This thread has gone very quiet. Have all the IS300h owners dashed to their nearest Lexus dealer to trade their stallions of the highway in for something faster? I'm just waiting for an important Zoom meeting to end, and I'm off to Leicester, make no mistake!

[Pompeyscouser]

I have had my 2015 f-sport since 2016 and have tried to find an argument to change to a different car. I considered the obvious brands that I have previously had. They were 3 BMWs (328i, 320d touring, 316 compact), 2 Mercedes (C250d, C200) and a VW GTD all as company cars and while each had their merits, none met my overall criteria for comfort, speed, good fuel economy and reliability. The Is300h is comfortable (even in f-sport), has enough speed (especially at the lights in sport mode easily getting ahead of other cars up to legal speed limit), averaging +40 mpg in everyday use and apart from seized callipers (common issue as far as I can tell) has been fault free in 5 years. The diesel BMWs all had to have engine parts replaced. The Mercedes were comfortable but gave no pleasure when driven. The VW interior was disintegrating after 3 years! So, Lexus vs the rest. No contest. It looks like the Lexus IS staying with me for a few more years. I just wish they had carried on with the IS. Oh, and mine is only £10 per year road tax, yippee.

Enough said.

[johnno]

I have posted about my previous F Sport before, but to reiterate, it felt luxurious, agile and fast (yes Linas!) enough to overtake swiftly when required. No, it isn't a racing car and I didn't want one! No, it might not be as fast as a BMW with a similar size engine, but unlike a BMW it's built to be trouble free for hundreds of thousand miles and I don't wish to be associated with the brainless BMW drivers who try and push everyone else out of the third lane so they can show off their gormless modified exhaust noise at every opportunity. I mostly used my F Sport in sport mode as it gave a better response without flooring the accelerator without really harming mpg (average 48 over 5.5 years according to the car computer. As for criticising the use of the 300H model name, its a 2.5 litre engine with  a significant hybrid electric motor assist so its perfectly logical (except to our friend!)

[Bounce75]

I have just returned from a 600 mile round trip using motorways, A roads & B roads, the computer is showing 48.6mpg which I am very happy with.

As for performance I think the IS300 is great, enough power to get you out of trouble & it handles really well. I think it compares well to Merc C class, 3 series & A4's in performance i.e. 20l.tdi's & 1.8l-2.0l petrol motors.

[Linas.P]

10 hours ago, johnno said:

but unlike a BMW it's built to be trouble free for hundreds of thousand miles

and I don't wish to be associated with the brainless BMW drivers who try and push everyone else out of the third lane so they can show off their gormless modified exhaust noise at every opportunity

And that is true and I said it myself - but why don't you say the way it is "an extremely reliable, luxurious and well built car", but fast it isn't. 

As well I would like to remind you that third lane is for overtaking only, that is not according to me, that is according to Highway code. As such there should be nobody pushing you out of third lane - you should overtake and immanently move over. There are idiots driving all sorts of makes and models of cars, having faster car doesn't automatically make person brainless idiot.

30 minutes ago, Bounce75 said:

I have just returned from a 600 mile round trip using motorways, A roads & B roads, the computer is showing 48.6mpg which I am very happy with.

As for performance I think the IS300 is great, enough power to get you out of trouble & it handles really well. I think it compares well to Merc C class, 3 series & A4's in performance i.e. 20l.tdi's & 1.8l-2.0l petrol motors.

Thanks for just proving my point - performance compares well with 1.8-2l petrol cars i.e. absolutely entry level models not meant to have good performance... meaning? Maybe it should be called 200h as I said? 

[johnno]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And that is true and I said it myself - but why don't you say the way it is "an extremely reliable, luxurious and well built car", but fast it isn't. 

As well I would like to remind you that third lane is for overtaking only, that is not according to me, that is according to Highway code. As such there should be nobody pushing you out of third lane - you should overtake and immanently move over. There are idiots driving all sorts of makes and models of cars, having faster car doesn't automatically make person brainless idiot.

Thanks for just proving my point - performance compares well with 1.8-2l petrol cars i.e. absolutely entry level models not meant to have good performance... meaning? Maybe it should be called 200h as I said? 

In real world driving it is fast, as most owners recognise. 0-60 and maximum bhp values are completely irrelevant to ordinary drivers.

[Bounce75]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Thanks for just proving my point - performance compares well with 1.8-2l petrol cars i.e. absolutely entry level models not meant to have good performance... meaning? Maybe it should be called 200h as I said? 

I never bought the IS300 expecting it to have the performance of a 3ltr, I didn't ever realise that is what it meant?

As I say I did compare it to other makes with what I class as similar powered, but the IS300h I thought was just a slightly better experience (obviously just my view).

What I will add is that I am very impressed with the fuel economy for the size of the car.😃

[Linas.P]

17 minutes ago, johnno said:

In real world driving it is fast, as most owners recognise. 0-60 and maximum bhp values are completely irrelevant to ordinary drivers.

"fast", "ordinary driver", "irrelevant", "real world driving" are all subjective terms. You have opinion and that is fine, but you project your opinion onto everyone as a fact, and that is not ok. 

IS300h is slow car in comparison with other cars and by using Lexus own terminology, definitions and nomenclature. That is fact. There are cars slower than IS300h and there are cars faster than IS300h and people manage to safely drive them, so it shows that different levels of performance are sufficient for different people. But to say "it is fast enough" unless you are "brainless idiot", implies that nobody should ever need car faster than IS300h and I don't think you are entitled to imply this.  

6 minutes ago, Bounce75 said:

I never bought the IS300 expecting it to have the performance of a 3ltr, I didn't ever realise that is what it meant?

As I say I did compare it to other makes with what I class as similar powered, but the IS300h I thought was just a slightly better experience (obviously just my view).

What I will add is that I am very impressed with the fuel economy for the size of the car.😃

Well that is called ignorance and ignorance is never good argument. I would as well point out that IS300h was priced above similarly powered cars and instead priced closer to the cars with comparable performance to 3L petrol (or diesel cars) i.e. BMW320i was cheaper, whereas BMW330i was closer to Lexus IS300h in terms of starting price. It is fair to say that Lexus was better equipped for each trim level, making it somewhere in between, but closer to 330, than 320... 

Fuel economy is definitely good in town, that is where hybrids are strongest, but absolutely unimpressive on motorway at any speed past 70MPH. Any diesel and most petrol cars are similar if not better. Obviously, what helps IS300h in UK is that we have retarded speed limits which are one of the lowest in the Europe.  

[Spacewagon52]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 You have opinion and that is fine, but you project your opinion onto everyone as a fact, and that is not ok. 

 "it is fast enough" unless you are "brainless idiot", implies that nobody should ever need car faster than IS300h and I don't think you are entitled to imply this.  

 

Teapots and kettles come to mind..........

Questions I would appreciate an answer to Linus:

 

What car do you drive at present?

What was your last Lexus car?

:

 

[Linas.P]

Well... this is always never ending discussion. I hate to remind people how slow IS300h is, but I only have to do it because people continuously claim it is "fast enough" as if this is objective truth and not personal experience/perspective.

If you have personal question to me, then you are always welcome to drop me personal message and I will be more than happy to answer it. As well my name is Linas.