lee789

RAV 4 Hybrid is a petrol. Wouldn't touch another diesel due to uncertainty over proposed tax increases, and on-going dpf issues due to ever more stringent EU emissions legislation.

The RAV 4 I have been loaned is an Excel 4WD with Toyota Safety Sense pack. According to the figures, it's slightly quicker than the NX to 60 too, but it's the 60% improvement over the NX's urban and extra urban figures I usually achieve that is so significant. Maybe Lexus ought to fit smaller wheels and tune the NX differently if it makes that much difference. I would give one serious thought if it weren't shaped like a brick, as the hybrid system works a lot better than in the Lexus. It is relatively easy to get up to A road speed without the engine cutting in, and the battery recharges much more quickly.

I've had a loan of a RAV 4 hybrid for a few days, which is similar in size to the NX, and a very similar power train as far as I am aware. I've been averaging between 57 and 62mpg on long runs, and 48 in town. That's massively better than the NX, so how come?? Pity it's so damn ugly!!

I think it's because he has a dog in a large dog carrier, so most of the space has gone before the luggage for the family of 5 can be loaded. Should've gone for a Sorento or Santa Fe if he needed a huge cargo area, but he's young, and I think he suffers from a bad case of badge snobbery.

My son in law gets 22 in town and 30 on a longer run from his 200T. He likes the car, but says he wished he had known how small the boot was before ordering it blind. I thought the boot on my 300H was OK, so expected the 200T would be considerably larger.

Nowhere near as bad as a cigarette, No tar or nasty chemicals, just propylene glycol, glycerine, flavourings (all found in foods, and harmless), and for those who want it, nicotine, which is addictive, but not dangerous,. Most e cigs have no smell at all, and if you can smell anything it is likely to be from an e liquid the user has added something to. Basically what users blow out is condensation/steam from the burning process (the battery heats a coil, which turns the liquid into vapour). I can understand why the tobacco industry is so keen to spread stories of e cigs being harmful, or of unknown risk, but they are a huge threat to their business, with millions giving up in favour of e cigs. So they are trying to get legislation passed to either restrict, or ban them. Pretty rich from an industry still peddling a product which is known for sure to have killed countless millions, and which has many of our own politicians either lobbying for them for back-handers, or sitting in their boardrooms.

Yes Steve, I'm sure the petroleum companies will be given the exclusive contracts for hydrogen supply, just as official approval, and the contracts for NHS supplied E Cigarettes has been given to British American Tobacco. That's our "honest" politicians for you.

i imagine hybrids will become obsolete when more hydrogen cell vehicles start appearing, and prices drop. That's really dependent on the govt ensuring the facilities are available at filling stations nationwide, instead of the two or three there are at the moment. They haven't been that quick with recharge points, and the petroleum industry will probably lobby for years, and pay off the right people to slow it right down, or kill it off completely.

I wonder how much of the mpg is actually down to electric power only. Probably minimal, and virtually cancelled out overall by having to lug the batteries around. That's why the similarly priced, but far less attractive top spec Outlander models outsell the NX by more than 3 to 1, Obviously fuel economy matters more to some than quality, reliability and looks. I agree with Jason, and I am usually happy to sacrifice fuel economy for other benefits, What's annoying is being totally misled by Lexus. There is no way they achieved those figures unless they were driving and coasting downhill on a very very long mountain road.

I think a lot of people go for the NX 300H knowing they are getting all those things, but also under the impression they will be getting the improved fuel economy of a hybrid as a bonus. There are many on this forum who are disappointed with the NX's fuel economy, and wondered if they were doing something wrong, The results of this survey indicate that it's not them, it's the official Lexus figures, which are wildly inaccurate. I know all manufacturer mpg figures are unachievable in the real world, but to miss them by nearly 54% is terrible.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/topten/top-25-the-worst-real-mpg-cars-of-2015/

If that's the XC90 Hybrid the figures may be misleading. The Volvo can accelerate up to approx 75mph on electric power alone, and drivers can select between electric only, engine only, and both power sources. I've driven the XC90 Hybrid and it is a phenomenally fast vehicle, as well as being much more fuel efficient than the Lexus or Porsche. I'm wondering if Autoexpress timed 50-70 on electric power only, as that is the default setting for the car. Engine power on the Lexus and Porsche comes in earlier, so might explain the poor 50-70 figure for the Volvo. With the POWER button selected on the XC90 it simply flies between 50 and 70, although I wouldn't buy one because it's far too boxy far my liking.

I have started doing a lot of short journeys, which doesn't really go well with the DPF's on diesels. Why would the battery on a petrol engined car go flat any quicker than a diesel? My petrol car pays maximum VED rate anyway, so how ever much they cheated it wouldn't make any difference!!

Rather glad I ditched diesel for a plug in and petrol engines.

I don't know about a drop in the ocean Phil. 482,000 cars to retrofit, and the EPA saying a maximum fine of $37,500 a car, which is $18 Biillion, if the Federal Government pushes for that. I understand that VW have said they have no intention of paying that kind of fine, but if that's what's decided, and they want to continue selling cars in the US, they won't have much choice. By the way, you say the cheat was done by fitting Adblue tanks to tested cars, and removing them from retail cars. I thought this was all about illegal software installed on the vehicles to produce false results??

Well, even if it's only US cars that are affected, I don't think everybody is going to be happy. It remains to be seen if European and UK cars are affected, because the same software was installed on our cars that was used to cheat the US tests. It's going to cost VW an arm and a leg to retrofit Adblue tanks (if it can even be done, which I strongly doubt), and then they face a massive fine. I don't think customers will be overjoyed either, because Adblue isn't cheap, and it's not very convenient.

I think if VW (or the cars of any other manufacturer who have used similar tactics) are found to have inaccurate emissions, the Government will most definitely increase the Excise Duty to the correct level. It will then be down to owners to sue the manufacturer(s) for the additional cost, and the depreciation of their vehicles caused by their dishonesty.It would be an unpopular move to do this, but it is hardly fair for somebody to be able to drive one of the affected cars at a lower VED rate than it actually is, when other owners driving cars that flt into the same VED group have to pay the full rate. It will be a nice unexpected earner for the Government, and we all know they can't resist it when a windfall comes their way.

Hi Paul. Because the engine on the NX Hybrid cuts in at anything more than a gentle touch of the accelerator pedal, it would be difficult. It might be achievable, as long as the garage is no more than a few hundred yards away, you have sufficient charge in the batteries, and you don't mind a bit of road rage from drivers behind you!!

Thanks David, glad you agree. I really can't understand why the senior manager at head office couldn't see it too. Probably did, but knew that if he didn't tow the company line he would be on the first plane to Seoul, and strung up by the genitals with piano wire!!

Ah, I got it really cheap - 5 months old and after long & hard negotiation almost half list price, so not too worried about depreciation yet. I figure on keeping it for another 30 months (until it's 3 years old) and then p/ex it with 2 years warranty and service pack left on it. Aside from the issue with the non-folding seats, and the appalling attitude towards my complaint, it really is an amazing car. I reckon in a very short period of time they will have cracked the luxury car market, and the H badge prejudice will disappear. This Gen 2 model is a huge step up from Gen one, and if that continues with Gen 3, they are going to seriously worry the Germans, Japanese and Castle Bromwich. I used to laugh at my brother in law for driving a Sportage and then an i40 and Tucson, but he's been with the brand for 8 years now, and never once had any issues. Meanwhile my Jags, BMW's and Audi's have proved to be a pile of poo. I've still got my NX and Volvo V60, and don't intend to part with them yet, but if I get £12k for the Genesis in three years, it will only have cost me £12k, which is a lot less than I would lose on some other cars. PS The 14 speaker Lexicon Logic 7 Surround system in the car is leagues ahead of ML. I'm not surprised Rolls Royce use the same set up. Everything else is first class too, apart from a couple of nasty cheap switches from an i20, and a handbook written by somebody who learn't English from watching imported BBC TV shows.

Hi David, although I'm a Lexus owner, the car in question is not a Lexus. If it had been, the attitude of customer services towards my complaint would have doubtless been a lot more positive and polite. I won't name the manufacturer directly, let's just say they are a huge company flogging a big, expensive petrol V6 car, which is named after the first book in the bible, and a famous band fronted by Phil Collins/Peter Gabriel.

Thanks Dave. Yes the salesman is speaking to his director to see if he has some luck higher up the food chain. I don't want to reject the car, and I don't want anything from them other than an admission they screwed up with the wording, and will rectify it asap. It's their attitude that makes me want to take it as far as I can.

Hi Dave. Thanks for your reply. It's a difficult one this. The vehicle is only sold at a tiny number of main dealers in the UK, and only a handful have been sold. Ordinarily I would blame the dealer for not knowing the cars they sell well enough, but in this case they were offering information based on what the brochure said, as the car was coming directly from a director of the manufacturer. In other words, the dealer is licensed to sell the car, but given the rarity, may not know all the ins and outs, or have even seen one in the showroom. If I could have seen one prior to buying, I would have done, because when you open the boot and see how it narrows drastically towards the rear, it's obvious there can't be folding seats. I had the opportunity to talk to a senior officer at the manufacturer today, and despite my argument that the wording in the brochure is misleading, he would not accept it. The exact wording is "60/40 Power Folding Rear Seats". I think most people would interpret that as seats that fold down independently of each other in 60/40 configuration to extend boot/luggage space. His argument was that it is the terminology used by his company to describe electrical adjustment and partial reclining of the seats. Now I think they are two entirely different things, but he refused to accept this at all. Interestingly the few reviews I have read by the UK motoring press mention the car having 60/40 folding rear seats to increase load space. My guess is they probably never checked, and took the description in the brochure for granted. The guy I spoke to today was unhelpful, and at times just downright rude. If they had admitted the wording was badly chosen, and that they would amend it, I would have most likely been satisfied. However, their attitude annoyed me so much that I'm half inclined to put in a claim for an expensive roof storage box, to make up for the loss of load space I thought I was getting. I probably won't get anywhere, but I could back that up with Small Claims action at very minimal cost to me, but maximum inconvenience to the manufacturer. It would be interesting to see how a claims judge would view that wording.

Anyone??

Hi everyone. Can I get your opinions on something please? I've just purchased an expensive ex-demo car from a main dealer by telephone, and the first time I got to see it was when it was delivered. It was purchased for a number of reasons, one of which was that it had electrically folding 60/40 rear seats. This is listed as a feature of the car in the manufacturers brochure, and on-line at their website. However, when the car arrives, not only do the seats not electrically fold, they don't fold down at all. It turns out that the manufacturer has misdescribed this feature in the brochure, and should have said that the rear seats electrically adjust and partially recline. Obviously this is extremely disappointing if (like me) you are expecting to be able to lower the seats to carry larger loads. I have spoken to a number of sales staff at different dealerships, and most of them were unaware of this issue. However, a couple of salesmen told me that they had raised this misdescription as a concern when they attended their training courses for this model earlier this year. However, since then the manufacturer has done nothing to change the brochure, or the details on their website. I admit that I would be very reluctant to reject the car because it is excellent in every other way. I have considered asking the manufacturer for some kind of compensation, or gesture of goodwill, but if I do that and tell them I am prepared to keep the car, they would probably argue that the feature couldn't have been that important to me in the first place. I expect they would try and transfer the complaint to the supplying dealer, but they sold the car in good faith, totally unaware that this issue existed. So, I don't see how they can be responsible for a mistake made by the manufacturer. I know mistakes are sometimes made, but I feel particularly annoyed that they have done nothing about it, despite being made aware of the issue with the information in the brochure months ago. I know they will probably hide behind a disclaimer that they cannot guarantee the specification described in the brochure, because car specs often change. but this is NOT a spec change, this is something that has never appeared on the vehicle, but has been wrongly printed in the brochure as a feature. Really grateful for any input. Thanks guys!