Roscobbc

My IS300H Exec's contract ran out November - new wheels now are a plug-in Hybrid BMW 2 Series Active Tourer. Yes, its a BIK thing, and I know - hardly a Lexus replacement but surprising good (except for one thing - relative to this thread) with only a 3 banger 1500cc turbo petrol with front wheel drive 6 speed auto. Clever thing is that the hybrid set-up drives the rear wheels so it is effectively (and when you need it) 4 wheel drive. This is really quite good in the weather we are having and is great fun 'launching' on roundabouts. Far quicker 'off the line' that the Lexus (which in itself isn't slow) Where it looses out is at higher motorway speeds - whereas the Lexus 'kicked-down' had a surprising turn of speed at 70 mph plus - this car trades this for 0-60's, which is fine for the town driving I mainly do. The one area which is most disappointing is fuel consumption - the best I've seen on a motorway run is 41 mpg - with an equally poor average of 31 mpg in mixed urban/city/M25. Considering it has a 1000 cc smaller engine than the Lexus (which in itself it a large engine) it makes one realise actually how good the Lexus is.

Saw this on the Lexus stand at Goodwood Festival of Speed - simply outrageous styling!

I'm sure you are correct. Having driven company vehicles for over 40 years I just 'know' that HMG will want their fair (unfair) share of any savings the individual may make in running an electric vehicle both in terms of direct taxation at the point of use (I.e at pump or at meter) - for the company user there will be the addition of BIK implications. Nothing is ever for nothing - eventually someone will pay - and that is YOU!

Our 'eggs' are of differing sizes here. Domestic tumble drier on 240v 13 amp supply can only be 3KW maximum. 7 KW item (say water heater) will require specialist installation (as would 'home' charger) - using Tesla's own figures 300 mile range would require close to a 14 hour charge on 7 KW charger. 22 KW charger would take 4.5 hours. Cost for latter would be (not allowing for off peak rates) 7 times the cost of a 3KW domestic heater to do this. Still cheaper admittedly than fossil fuel - but it isn't taxed - yet. My whole point is that HMG revenue are not going to sit by and watch a huge increase in electric vehicle purchases and associated home charging and loosing the revenue at the pumps (plus letting 'free' Supercharging continue at Tesla stations). Whilst vehicle sales are small numbers it will all be fine, nothing will change - big take-up (like when type 3 is released) and things WILL change. I am not condoning electric vehicles - it's just that we are not given the complete picture. Calculate-in carbon emissions from manufacture of car and more importantly manufacture and re-cycle of batteries PLUS replacement battery cost further in to the vehicle life cycle and the logic still does not compare just yet. I thought that Musk was tying-up an exclusive deal with a major battery manufacturer to set up a manufacturing plant for automotive batteries?

Whilst I generally agree with these comments. From a manufacturing and marketing position it isn't always the best of things to be 'first' in anything. Tesla, yes a fine vehicle and the new type '3' has created significant interest and 'advance' orders. Or is that possibly rather silly people putting money down on something they haven't actually seen and doesn't even exist currently and won't be seen here in the UK for 3 or 4 years. Would people lay a £1K deposit that for a Ford or GM vehicle with that lead time? The real issue for anyone considering an all electric vehicle in the next few years is availability of sufficient charging capacity from our national grid. We have been very lucky over the last few years to have had a whole series of relatively mild winters in the UK. With existing fossil fuelled power stations originally built post WW2 and well past their 'sell by' dates the nation is currently a only a 'few steps away' from major power shortages. If the country has a really bad and extended winter we will begin to 'run out' of power. Where does that leave the guy with the electric car? - the home chargers for the Tesla are 22 kw's (smaller size than Supercharger) and in real terms energy 'hungry' and ultimately probably heavier in terms of deferred emissions than cars with internal combustion engines. I just can't see this ending well. If electrical vehicles were to take-off in a big way I'm sure our Government would be looking at the lost taxation revenue from reduced petrol/diesel sales and look for a way to penalise anyone 'home charging' an electric vehicle by increased taxation. Tesla owners - enjoy your car for a few years before HMG want their 'bit of the action' Going back to Lexus (and Toyota for that matter) I think they are doing the correct thing - they have a superb and efficient hybrid drive train that is very reliable - there is a 'plug-in' version of the Prius if you want it. I suspect that many of the 'buyers' of 'plug-in' hybrids (like Mitsubishi PHEV) are company purchasers or leased and bought purely for the low BIK taxation and will never see a home charger. To me is seems that Lexus/Toyota are 'sitting on the fence' and just watching, observing things - they can sell all their current vehicles so why go any more 'radical' than they have already?

Interesting comment re. improving fuel consumption. I had had IS300H for 18 months and now at 38000 miles. Living on the outskirts of London most of my driving is outer London, M25 and inner London. Fuel economy seems to average between 43 - 45 mpg at best. Yes, a leisurely (if that is the right word) amble around the M25 at 55 -60 mph will see average economy creep up to high 40's, even low 50's. Kinda have the feeling that a longer motorway journey at these speeds would creep up to higher 50's - no more. My Sunday trip earlier this week up to Birmingham and back netted 46 mpg (at legal speeds) So today on a regular trip down to our works on the East Sussex coast comprises 10 miles of 50 mph 'B' roads, 35 miles of M25/A21 'A' road and then a further 20 miles of mixed 50/60 'A' road. I usually get 44 - 47 mpg on this trip. Today I did the run down (and return journey) in 'Sport' mode rather than the usual standard or Eco. Trip down read 48.1 mpg average. Return trip was a little slower and hence clocked 49.1 mpg. Obviously the car responded far more lively although I didn't take advantage of this - quite the opposite. The thing that was noticeable was that usually when changing from 50 mph 'A' roads to 70 mph 'A' roads and motorways the fuel consumption usually starts to drop a little. In 'Sport' mode it was starting to increase at 70 -75 mph. Even more significant was that at the end of my return journey in sub 30 mph traffic the average mpg was improving further and had I driven another 3 or 4 miles I'm sure it would have gone over 50 mpg average. Perhaps part of my 'perception' is down to the fact that mpg recorded is 'average' and not 'instant' mpg. Irrespectively it seems as though I have seen a 'real' 2-3 mpg benefit in 'Sport' mode today

Can't really say I have any concerns about safety in heavy rain (compared with dry roads) - but a couple of weeks ago I had to have both rear tyres replaced owing to severe wear on the inside edges of both rear tyres. This wear (pointed out to me at a service) was so severe that the inner two inches of tread was completely worn away and the metal re-inforcement was clearly visible - ready, I guess for a blow-out. I totally missed seeing this as the outer edge of the tyre was well within legal limits. I had a front tyre renewed about 8000 miles ago when it took a nail in the side wall. Car is on contract hire and company only authorise Michelin. So I had the two rear tyres replaced and 4 corner tracking done etc. The very first thing I noticed was that the Michelin tyres run a little quieter than the OEM Bridgestones. They didn't really make too much difference to its tendency to 'track' on poor road surfaces or 'tramlines' left by HGV's. Can't really say that the 'tramlining' is dangerous - irritating perhaps. My experience over the years driving cars with low profile tyres is that once they wear down a millimeter or two from the legal minimum tyre depth they WILL tend to tramline. In my case the fact that I had two new rear tyres fitted and with one 8000 mile tyre and an original tyre on the front end it explains (to me anyway) why the car will still 'tramline'.

My IS300 is now a year old and 28K miles - no rattles at all - the only noise to irritate me appears to come from the left hand side of the centre console. Its a constant buzzing that is only really apparent when stationery - it seems to be from what may be a servo motor for the h & v system. I use the highly technical method of a hard 'slap' to the side of the console which silences it for a while. Can't be bothered to tale in to dealers and wait for half a day for them to investigate (and possibly not find the cause) so it can wait until next service. General road noise inside car from road surfaces is not good if on 'older' surfaces - motorways with concrete tops are a bad source of noise - so much so that 'hands free' phone conversation for other party is almost impossible at legal speeds. Some of the 'newer' low noise road surfacing materials are really much better.

1 year and 25000 miles driving in central, outer London and London suburbs - also using M25 on an almost daily basis and my average mpg is between 42 on a poor day and 47/48 on a good day with 43/43 being fairly typical. I'm sure a constant motorway trip at 55/60 mph would realise mid/upper 50's (if I had the patience to travel at these speeds) Our evening shopping trip is a 6/8 journey with the last part up a fairly hilly road. Mpg will show at about 43 mpg for the outgoing journey. The return 6 mile trip (usually less traffic) on the same road (but now 2 miles of downhill) usually racks-up an average of 62/65 mpg. I am begining to realise that the IS300H perhaps needs a larger capacity hybrid battery. I'm convinced that mpg would improve further.

What you need to be careful about is walking away from car and at a distance locking it from the remote - in the above situation you may be unaware that it didn't lock correctly.

Its actually 1s slower than 0-62mph! :P However, the car has some serious grunt - 350nm of it in fact! Thats about the same as the IS350 so it'll definitely be a hoot to drive. HP doesn't really matter as its what "holds" speed. In the real world, torque is what you want to be looking at. TBF the 0-62mph time is conservative like I mentioned. How can the NX get to 62mph with more weight and a slower transmission (Autoexpress got the NX to be 6.8s! btw). Id bet a badger itd hit 62mph in 6.5s! Great believer in torque myself - BHP is only a component of torque after all.

Am I missing something here? - 1 second less on the 0-60 dash (not that this is a good 'yardstick' for measuring performance) not that much additional HP, I'm guessing higher emissions and therefore RFL - so why would this sell?

I believe that is one of the advantages of RWD EVs, the TC is so advanced that you can literally floor the throttle and you simply go forwards without much drama. Haven't experience it my self yet, I'll let you know how it feels in a weeks time :) I hope your not suggesting that you accelerate hard at 70mph on public when the legal speed limit is 70mph ;) Certainly not - that would be most irresponsible - only ever conducted on Gernam Autobahn's or private roads!

What do you mean by difficult to control...The point of a RWD 300bhp car is the fact you can get the tail out for a little wag by using your right foot. People don't buy these cars to make them feel safe. If you tried to use 100% of the power in my old E90 335i on a slightly damp/cambered road, you better be ready for it to try and throw you into the nearest ditch (and tried it did on many occasions), and that was in a straight line :)It's the one thing I really miss about RWD, with my FWD Leaf all you get is understeer, followed by understeer, followed by more understeer, and than the TC kicks in kills all the power....and than I realise I'm about to run out of charge and have to crawl home at 30mph :) As in - its difficult to keep in a straight line with your foot planted to the floor LOL. Its a ditch finder - hence why so many have crashed! My '68 4 speed Vette has a very 'real' 570 engine bhp/606 ftlb tq. This in a rwd 1725 kg car with only an LSD for trying to keep it in a straight line. Its all perfectly usable (given due respect) however it's the unexpected things that will catch you out, not at lower speeds as you are usually 'ready' for more or less anything. Its often when accelerating hard at 70+mph speeds - i.e the slightest bit of unseen damp or dew on the road and the rear wheels will 'spin-up'. All good fun and perfectly controlable- when you are ready for it! And this is the thing with late model performance cars - they all have so much in the way of 'granny' intervention controls, todays drivers will rarely find the 'real' limits of their cars. And then when it all goes 'pear shaped' they won't have a clue as to what needs to be done - and off they go into the shrubbery, another vehicle or worse!

RX8 is nothing in comparison - a 135i is difficult to control sometimes - the 235i is more stable. 135i when driven in Eco mode always seems to be artificially 'held back'

I regularly see a black one (same as mine) and a white Premium in Brentwood. Considering I drive mainly within M25 and Central London they are still a rare sight. CT200's are a different matter - see far more of those (but they have been around for quite a while)

In 'difficult' driving condition 'less' is very often so much 'more'. I'm relating to tyre width here. A narrow tyre will more often get you through the mud, snow and surface water simply because its thinner section will cut through the surface easier than a wider tyre that sits 'on top' of the surface. One only needs to look at rally car tyres to see an example of this. OK so we generally don't need studs or M+S rubber, but the Europeans perhaps have the best answer with summer and winter sets of tyres.

I live in Essex too and have been driving in heavy (but not torrential) rain today. Real issue today is 'standing' water from poorly drained road surfaces. 70 mph is definately too fast if the conditions are poor. I have driven many, many different cars over the years and I can't say the IS is any worse in stability terms than other cars. Certainly when modern low profile tyre wear down to about 3/4mm they will often suffer 'darting' and stability problems. Oddly enough I had come to think that the traction and stability controls on the IS were a bit too 'granny' like and restricting. I was on a single carriageway road this afternoon and with a car waiting to turn right in to a side turning - I simply accelerated through on the side with (seemingly) plenty of room (this was a wet road remember) as I went past the car turning right there was a bang of some kind and thinking I must had hit the other vehicle looked back in my mirror and realised that the 'bang' was in fact the rear offside wheel momentarily breaking traction over a very large steel inspection cover in the road surface. Impressive (if still a bit nanny like) that the traction control operated so quick.

But the wider tyres get the power down in dry weather and is essential for ultimate grip. Wider tyres are not always the 'answer' for ultimate grip. Suspension design is often far more effective in determining 'ultimate' grip. The difference in grip between tyre of say, one manufacturers 255mm and 285mm wide tyre is not really significant. The real issue is providing a tyre for all weather conditions and differing road surfaces. A road legal track day tyre will give the ultimate grip in 'ideal' conditions but be potentially worse than useless on a wet or poorly surfaced road. Some car manufacturers (not many) manage to get the perfect balance. I have alway admired Honda and Lotus who have always gone against the trend of wider and wider low profile tyres and kept with seemingly 'old school' rubber, producing some of the finest handling cars ever!

I have just looked at the spec's of the charging 'pad' you are using - 'interesting' that the dimensions are the same as the cut out in the centre console of the IS (also perfect for my Galaxy S4 mini) - so 'interesting' in fact that I would have thought that is exactly what it was designed for!

I'm not sure but I think she may have triggered the "follow me home" function. I'm ready to be corrected but I think if you pull the stalk towards you and hold for a couple of seconds, on release the lights stay on for a short while. Helps you find the front door in the dark ! It's probably in the menu's somewhere lol That function is usually (I think) with the ignition OFF

Ideal for holding Sushi or Noodles? -

Despite people having reservations about front daytime running lights I believe that LED fronts with a higher intensity 'pin point' illumination ARE a safety benefit - on basis that they ARE really noticable by other road users and pedestrians.

The 'thing' with torque (and the Tesla by design has 'oodles' of it - is that it is a deceiving characteristic. I.e the car with a 'flat' torque' curve (which is what a Tesla will have) will never actually feel that 'fast' on its own. You will need to go up against something with a equally powerful conventional powertrain to get a proper comparison - and even then the Tesla will have linear acceleration whereas the other vehicle (even with auto transmission) will have 'peaks and troughs' in it power delivery.

Have to agree with Chris - I came from a 1 Series BMW to the IS - its only when I have had a loan car when the IS is in for servicing that I have had a CT to use (4 or 5 times). As a town car IMHO the CT has a poor ride for a premium small fwd 'hatchback', although if using for motorway journeys the ride quality is actually quite acceptable and although far less powerful than IS it is adequate for this kind of cruising. Don't known if it was me or not, but rear visibility in CT seems very poor compared with IS.