IS300h Vs IS200t

[agent_dess]

Looking for views on 300h vs 200t from people who have driven both... Is the 200t actually quicker, it's certainly got better 0-60 time and more torque on paper. 

Ans is it possible to get above 30mpg on it without driving like a gran? 😁 

[Linas.P]

11 hours ago, agent_dess said:

Looking for views on 300h vs 200t from people who have driven both... Is the 200t actually quicker, it's certainly got better 0-60 time and more torque on paper. 

Ans is it possible to get above 30mpg on it without driving like a gran? 😁 

Is it quicker - yes noticeably quicker. 0-60 times aside (7.5 vs 8.4) IS200t will be quicker at any speed past first 10metres or so, torque from electric motors on IS300h has little bit of advantage from stand still, but literally for first few metres. So yes IS200t is noticeable faster car... and yes I have owned RC200t, but I have as well driven IS200t and it is much of the same story.

Is it possible to get above 30MPG... not really. Taking my driving aside the car is inherently terrible on fuel economy and yes you can technically get above 30MPG, but you have to work hard to get there. For example just cruising at 70MPH indicated (63MPH real), no braking, no accelerating the RC200t gets 33-34MPG so add +1 MPG for IS200t on 18" wheels, but this is absolutely ideal conditions on empty motorway. I have once seen 38MPG when driving on M6 at night with temporary 50MPH speed limit for 23 miles, it got to 38MPG, but then as soon as speed limit ended and I got back to 70MPH it quickly dropped back to 32MPG. So what we talking about here - to get 30MPG+ you need EXCEPTIONAL circumstances and be alone on the road, set cruise control and do not touch neither brakes, nor accelerator. On normal motorway driving keeping with the traffic it can barely reach 30MPG - 28-29MPG that is what I had, again add maybe +1MPG for IS vs RC, as RC slightly heavier and has wider and larger wheels. So you can just about get 30MPG, but not more. In the city - low 20MPGs even going under that, but I guess here one can blame the way I drive. I reckon 22-24MPG is possible if you "driving like granny". By the way 22MPG was my combined average during the 2.5 years ownership of RC200t. 

You owned IS250, so just to simplify - IS200t will be way WORSE on fuel economy than IS250. Take any conditions and any circumstances you had on your IS250 and add 30-50% more fuel consumption and that will be IS200t MPG. So where IS250 does 48MPG, IS200t will do 35MPG, where IS250 does 36MPG, it will be 24... and so on. 

[agent_dess]

so moral of the story "stick to your IS300h"...  hahaha 😂

Just out of curiosity why is the economy worse on the IS200t?  i would have thought smaller engine + turbo assist would make it better on fuel.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, agent_dess said:

turbo assist 

Turbo is never better for fuel, it exist to add power, not to save fuel. As well it exists to trick flawed pollution testing methodology, when paired with 8-Speed close ratio gearbox it can always keep engine on very low RPM during test cycle giving favourable CO₂ figures. In short when tested this way engine pretends it is anaemic 2L eco-engine, however that is achieved specifically by avoiding higher RPM where turbo starts to spool-up. Why it is so inefficient when turbo is boosting - that is because by compressing the air turbo heats it up and hot air causes pre-detonation in the engine, to avoid pre-detonation engine has to run rich (more fuel), so basically as soon as it is over 2000RPM car just dumps fuel into engine to protect it. This is not only very inefficient, but as well reduces the power of the engine. Now in theory fuel map can be "trimmed" increasing both efficiency and power, but Lexus tuned the car in the way to be reliable - so as result it just dumps fuel anytime you want to accelerate.

It is bad engine tuning, bad engine design, bad gearbox/engine combination - it exists to cheat CO₂ tests, not to be economical or nice to drive.

I remember TopGear or Fifth Gear did like for like test when 2gen Porsche Boxer came out (or maybe it was Cayman)... anyway one of the changes was move from 6 cylinder 2.5L NA to 4 cylinder 2.0L Turbo and Porsche claimed that car has lower CO₂ and better on fuel. Instead of running the car on flawed methodology, where it is simply allowed to slowly shift trough gears and slowdown on the rollers, they put both cars on track with testing equipment attached and it turned out 2L Turbo used more fuel and polluted more... just as expected. Sadly I can't find the clip now - maybe somebody knows what I am talking about and can link it?

P.S. - when I bought RC200t I knew this, but I hoped that by being "more modern" 200t will compensate for inherent issues i.e. yes it has all these inefficiencies related to turbo, but "surely Lexus made the difference elsewhere" and fuel economy will be comparable to IS250, yet with more power and maybe little bit more efficient when cruising along and avoiding the turbo. I was very wrong... 

[cadman2k]

I guess another thing to consider may be overall higher maintenance costs as expect the 200T will not have regenerative braking so will go through discs and pads like a conventional car. Not sure of the ratio but it may be that discs and pads on a hybrid can last up to 3 x longer....guess you'd need to do the maths on the full cost of ownership.....also I guess the hybrid will have a stronger residual value / hold its price more than the 200T.

I guess overall all this is debatable on what views you have.

[agent_dess]

I'm not bothered by maintenance cost as I can do my own service and brake changes and I realise VED will cost £265 per year vs £10.

While the IS300h is fine, the little kid in me wishes it was a little bit faster hence me looking at the IS200t.

But what I didnt want to go back to is getting 17-24mpg like I was getting toward the end of the IS250 life.

If the is200t  can do 30+ mpg then I can live with that given that I don't seem to getting anymore than 36-38mpg on average with the is300h anyway.

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, cadman2k said:

I guess another thing to consider may be overall higher maintenance costs as expect the 200T will not have regenerative braking so will go through discs and pads like a conventional car. Not sure of the ratio but it may be that discs and pads on a hybrid can last up to 3 x longer....guess you'd need to do the maths on the full cost of ownership.....also I guess the hybrid will have a stronger residual value / hold its price more than the 200T.

I guess overall all this is debatable on what views you have.

IS200t has brakes from IS350, much larger 4 piston callipers in front and much larger disks. This is sort of good and the bad, because they are bigger and they last probably as much as 300h brakes (certainly longer than IS250), but when it comes to replacement they cost loads of money to replace. I had claim against dealership (long story about them selling me the car without brake pads) and it was £1220 just for disks and pads. As well note that regenerative braking only helps if somebody cautiously uses them (or should I say maximises their use), if one accelerates all the way to the red light and then suddenly brakes, then there is no time for regenerative braking to make any difference and IS300h has very tiny and undersized brakes, so they can wear very fast if regen is not used all the time.

As ridiculous as it is IS350 is faster and more fuel efficient car, but Lexus didn't think anyone in UK would want one.

2 hours ago, agent_dess said:

But what I didnt want to go back to is getting 17-24mpg like I was getting toward the end of the IS250 life.

It would crazy to think what would be MPG on IS200t then! By any means if you have dealership which would lend one for 24h or weekend then go and try it out. Just don't fool yourself trying it with sales guy on the side. When I test drove RC200t sales guy pointed out that cars is economical "long term average 44MPG!". It took me some time to realise, but "long term" can be reset to zero, and one can click "update" button whenever they like, it is not like it resets every 100 miles, or every tank, it can be triggered manually and just takes last 7 updates. So how did they get "44MPG long term on RC200t"?! They reset the long term fuel consumption completely when going down the long hill and idling, then clicked "update" like 5 times in a row creating 5 records of ridiculous economy, like 77, 72, 78MPG and then never updated economy again, so last one was like 28MPG, and 34MPG, but with all those 70+ MPGs it averaged 44!

Neat trick I would say... if not little bit of miss-selling 

[agent_dess]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

IS200t has brakes from IS350, much larger 4 piston callipers in front and much larger disks. This is sort of good and the bad, because they are bigger and they last probably as much as 300h brakes (certainly longer than IS250), but when it comes to replacement they cost loads of money to replace. I had claim against dealership (long story about them selling me the car without brake pads) and it was £1220 just for disks and pads. As well note that regenerative braking only helps if somebody cautiously uses them (or should I say maximises their use), if one accelerates all the way to the red light and then suddenly brakes, then there is no time for regenerative braking to make any difference and IS300h has very tiny and undersized brakes, so they can wear very fast if regen is not used all the time.

As ridiculous as it is IS350 is faster and more fuel efficient car, but Lexus didn't think anyone in UK would want one.

It would crazy to think what would be MPG on IS200t then! By any means if you have dealership which would lend one for 24h or weekend then go and try it out. Just don't fool yourself trying it with sales guy on the side. When I test drove RC200t sales guy pointed out that cars is economical "long term average 44MPG!". It took me some time to realise, but "long term" can be reset to zero, and one can click "update" button whenever they like, it is not like it resets every 100 miles, or every tank, it can be triggered manually and just takes last 7 updates. So how did they get "44MPG long term on RC200t"?! They reset the long term fuel consumption completely when going down the long hill and idling, then clicked "update" like 5 times in a row creating 5 records of ridiculous economy, like 77, 72, 78MPG and then never updated economy again, so last one was like 28MPG, and 34MPG, but with all those 70+ MPGs it averaged 44!

Neat trick I would say... if not little bit of miss-selling 

Sneaky haha but good to know info, thanks Linus 🙂