Rabbers

That’s right. The reading steadies at 14.5 during driving, and is around 12.2-12.5 in Accessory mode. The “instructions” accompanying the gadget state voltages of 13.2 to 14.8 with engine running and 11.9 to 12.8 with engine off as good. I was given the same estimated delivery dates as you, and on past experience they seemed to be normal for small jiffy-bag type mailings from the PRC, so I was pleasantly surprised by delivery on 4 Oct. I might even give the seller a high star rating when Amazon asks.

Not In the Ducati I hope...😧!!

So did I, and it came in the mail yesterday more quickly than expected. Cheap but not nasty, it seems to work OK (my reading was a satisfactory 14.5V) and is a convenient thing to have. Not that I was too worried since I’ll be taking only occasional readings but I was glad to see that It fits in the cigar socket of the armrest cubby of the RC with plenty of room to spare.

Even in an industry known for reciprocal influences (which is a polite term for plagiarism or espionage) the resemblance is unusually striking. Not that design originality on Lexus' part in this particular instance is likely to be noticed or appreciated except by RC owners or a few people with an abnormal interest in cars. In fact, the sheer weight of market numbers will lead people, as has almost always been the case, to the subjective belief that Lexus copied BMW. And this despite Lexus' growing - and deserved - success in establishing a recognisable identity for its cars on the basis of what it rather hokily contrives to call its "l-finesse" design philosophy. Historically, Lexus had only itself to blame for being perceived as a non- innovator in body design, having chosen (in Europe at least) to pursue a policy of getting a piece of all BMW's market segments. By so doing, it was naturally obliged to duplicate the physical dimensions of competing models and thus turn the possibility of creating similarities of body contours and designs into a probability. I remember being surprised at how often the Lexus I thought I was seeing moving away or towards me at any significant distance would actually turn out to be a BMW when I got closer. To judge by the posted photo, maybe the time has finally come when what I first take to be a BMW may at least occasionally turn out to be a Lexus.

Notwithstanding the clarity of Britprius’ instructions, any attempt on my part to follow them in the event of need would place me so embarrassingly out of my depth as to lead me to take my trade to a tyre specialist who would do the job more cheaply and almost certainly no worse than Lexus.

Unless you need quick and substantial recharging rather than top-ups, I find one of the USB ports perfectly adequate, with the added advantage of being able to play music/podcasts content more clearly and at a lower volume setting than with BT, and with accompanying album art also displayed.

Thanks for confirming that the UK RC F-Sport has the AL-TPWS. I had never been convinced by information to the contrary even though I had it from a Swiss Lexus mechanic just returned from training in the UK. There was a bit of confusion at the time about specifications, early promotional literature and some pre- launch reviews having mentioned things like a G Force meter and a wireless phone charger which in fact never materialized.

Not having previously owned a car with a 4-Tyres Pressure Monitor, my IS300h having had only the generic low-pressure warning despite it being the top-spec Premier model, I was so happy about its presence in my new RC300h F-Sport that I posted my impressions of it in the RC Forum (see In Praise Of The AL-TPWS etc., started December 26, 2016). I subsequently learned that the AL-TPWS was standard only on continental European RC F-Sport models, and I suspect from the present thread that this has also remained the case with the IS. If so, I would be at a loss to understand the reason why. I confirm my enthusiasm for the AL-TPWS, which I use at least once a week to check if any single pressures need adjustment, which is something I was always too lazy or forgetful to do as regularly.

The last three posts add up to an interesting example of eristic coprophilia, unexpected in a Lexus forum....

My wife was just now looking over my shoulder at the photo of the worsened damage among the latest crop of posts. Her immediate thought, which I offer as a possibility, is that a small battery-operated appliance such as a torch with an unnoticed leak left on the seat even for a short time may have been the culprit. Anyway, I wish you luck but doubt if you’ll get any further response from Lexus.

I believe - in fact I know - the IS300h can be fitted with runflats. I once had an IS300h loaner when mine was being serviced, and, when asked if I had liked the ride, was slightly embarrassed to discover I had been driving on 17" Bridgestone runflats (245/45 if I remember right), noticing no difference whatsoever in respect of my own normal 18" PZeros. Admittedly, I had driven mainly in slow town traffic and quite good roads. Maybe cobblestones and higher speeds would have made more of a difference. I must say that I toy with the idea of choosing runflats every time I buy new tyres, but have so far always been put off by the prices.

John: Thank you very much. That’s precisely the sort of guidance I was looking for.... 👍

Interesting thread with lots of impressive technical information but, as the driver of a Lexus hybrid who places no abnormal demands on it, I am still none the wiser as to if or why or when I might need to worry about an old or ageing 12v battery. As far as I can gather, provided that cost is not an issue, nobody disagrees with the idea of replacing the battery after five years even if it is showing no untoward symptoms, the sole disincentive being the undemonstrable risk of replacing what may be a perfectly good battery with a faulty one. Is this a fair summary interpretation of the opinions so far expressed in the thread?

I’m sorry to be pessimistic but, if my experience of what sounds like the same problem was anything to go by, you will need to go to Lexus or, alternatively, a well-equipped professional body shop, keeping your fingers crossed that no metal part is broken or bent and needs replacing. If intact, the spring mechanism can quickly be snapped back into position by the use of a dedicated tool that holds the various connecting bars at the correct tension. This tool looks something like a crowbar but, I was told, not all workshops possess one and/or a mechanic skilled in its use.

Conventional wisdom, with which I would not quarrel, holds that you should not drive through water higher than your wheel axis - and then always as slowly as you possibly can in order not to create waves and splashing - which also means you should not, even when you know the drivers are not idiots, follow other cars into the flooding until their wake has subsided. But whatever your personal attitude to the risk may be, it would be best to know what your insurance policy says about responsibility for possible damage of any kind.

Phil: Try using Optimum Wash & Shine, 1-2 capfuls per bucketful of water. It is marketed primarily as a rinseless wash but is an excellent and gentle water softener.

Actually, until Lexus started aiming higher and wider, isn't this what all its customers were supposed to look like? ...

I just inspected the rear-seats leather in my own 2016 RC and it looks fine. To judge by the photos, a section of your leather and adjacent cloth appears to have been affected by some kind of corrosive external agent - and if Lexus says it was not acid from the batteries, I don't see how you can contradict. The closest I have seen to your problem was in the boot of an IS250 to the rear of which I kept a box with a few car-cleaning products. The contents of one of these, a liquid wax/polish, had separated from non-use leaving a thin liquid on top, and this had leaked through the box onto the boot carpet leaving a large hole which had gone unnoticed by me for many months. Are you absolutely sure you have never carried something potentially corrosive in the back?

Full marks to Lexus for not messing about too much with what remains a great design.

At speedometer readings of 50, 80, 100 and 120kmh respectively, the actual speeds of my RC shown by trustworthy Swiss roadside warning cameras, are 47, 74, 94 and 112kmh. Since I used to see the same or very similar differences for the IS300h, 250 and 200, I have never doubted that the margin of error in calibration is intentional - and I was originally somewhat irritated by what I considered an excess of nannyism on Lexus' part. Not that it mattered since I quickly acquired the habit of adding the differences back to the speedometer readings and then making a further upwards adjustment in accordance with what I know to be the official allowance on the posted speed limits. Although these allowances vary from country, what this means is that, if you so choose, you can, at the very minimum, add 10% to Lexus speedometer readings of legal limits without risking a speeding ticket.

Yes, if I adapt the weightings of my driving mix to those of Lexus' declared combined cycle, an 8% consumption difference in favour of the IS is proving close to my own experience. I must admit that, despite awareness of the figures, I have never considered the IS' better cx as a significant contributing factor to lower fuel consumption compared to the RC. While I am not presumptuous enough to challenge Lexus' wind-tunnel tests, my impression from the RC's driver's seat, particularly at higher speeds, has always been of superior aerodynamics if assessed on the basis of quietness and stability. However, given my total ignorance of the science involved, I must conclude that I am guilty of a whole set of highly subjective over-simplifications.

After a few months' ownership of my RC300h (MY2016, F-Sport), I posted some figures relative to its consumption compared with the IS300h (MY2013, Premier) I previously drove (see RC Forum: RC300h Fuel Consumption (v. IS300h), started March 17, 2017, and ...Continued, June 18, 2017). I concluded that the RC consumed something like 9-10% more on normal roads, averaging around 15km/l (=43mpg), and about 14% more, averaging 13km/l (=36.4mpg), on the motorway. Today, with almost 50000km (=31000miles) on the clock, I can broadly confirm the non-motorway figure while finding that I significantly overstated motorway consumption, 14km/l (=39.5mpg) being a truer figure for non-German motorway drives as long as one does not frequently exceed legal limits of 130kmh exemplified by Italy and France to which I personally try, more or less successfully, to adhere. My motorway figure, as posted, was in fact largely based on two autobahn drives the entire length of Germany, since repeated once more with an almost identical result. Keeping to a lower legal limit as that in the UK would, of course, give significantly better economy than in any of the countries mentioned. Be all this as it may, I have been happy to see my RC consumption figures turning out to be closer to those of the IS than I first thought. Measured in terms of visits to the pump the difference is noticeable but certainly not dramatic. Given that the difference is not directly proportionate to that in the kerb weights, I remain at a loss to fully understand why there should be any difference at all. I suspect - though I would probably deny it if pressed - that my habits and style of driving have changed slightly for the worse with ownership of the RC, which, being a coupé, tends to encourage a less sedate and relaxed approach to the road than the IS.

...You may very well think so, but I couldn’t possibly say...

Jason: Please take the following purely as an anecdote and not advice. I once had a colleague whose Audi TT had a noisy non-original windscreen, a fact he had not noticed when recently buying what was otherwise a very nice low-mileage car. Confirmation that the noisiness was due to badly- fitted low-quality glass was accompanied by not unexpectedly exorbitant quotes for a replacement by both Audi and a local windscreen specialist. One day soon afterwards I found him grinning all over his face and gleefully pointing to a long crack in the windscreen caused, he said, by a stone on his way to work - and which he had already reported to his insurance company. While naturally sharing his joy at being able to claim 85% of the replacement cost as per the terms of his policy, I was nevertheless left wondering about what must have been the most welcome stone in the history of cracked windscreens.

Great decision 😍! What took you so long?