Linas.P

Smoked could be legal as long as they meet legal requirements and can pass MOT (which I doubt), if they are reflective then they can theoretically be legal (but I doubt many meets requirements in practice). The second ones are just plain black, so I assume they are illegal because they do not reflect at all.

Thanks, I have suspected fuel pressure sensor myself, but it is enough to disconnect it to check. Basically if the sensors goes bad it shorts the 5V power and then ECU does not work, however by unplugging the sensor car should start in "limp mode", in my case it doesn't either way. Considering that you had exact same problem I may have to revisit this theory again.

On the battery terminal. Honestly cannot see any rationale for connecting it to car body. I guess somehow Ctek thinks it is better in case of some issue that instead of blowing the charger it blows something in car, but I can't see how that could be better. Basically when connected directly to the battery it is the charger or the battery which will be damaged in case something goes wrong (although Ctek should have built in protections). When connected to car body, it is the car electrical system which will be damaged - I assume weak point will be combination fuse if you lucky. But trust me - you don't want electrical issues on IS250!

They were only fitted to IS250C

Just get standard filter. I had K&N on IS250, but would not recommend it. First of all, it makes no difference, secondly it costs like 2.5x standard filters which are actually better, third it needs to be oiled and I suspect it contaminated my MAF. Basically it did everything bad that could have been expected in hindsight and no benefits over standard air filter.

Have not heard from the electrician for a while now, so I assume whatever they thought they could not with ECU reprograming without taking the dash out, didn't work out... As such today I have removed the dash myself, good part is that it took just 1.5h, including bringing the battery from home because I needed to move steering wheel away, I reckon it is doable in 30 minutes next time... and I was sort of scared of this job as I thought it will take 4 hours at least. Haven't checked much in terms of wiring, just quickly checked looms to see if somebody have touched them before and they all seems to be in good order, checked ground points and all look clean, nothing out of ordinary, some surface rust on few brackets and crossmember (but all Lexus I have seen has this, I assume condensation on bare metal), there are no signs of any leaks from sunroof, the windscreen is original... so kind of unfortunately there is nothing to report. ID Box is really tucked away begin the dash and pain to access, but all in all Power Supply ECU, ID Box, Body ECUs all look in perfect condition, no sigs of being wet, or oxidation - note as well all PCBs are covered in lacquer (basically sealed). Next step tomorrow will be to check the wiring further and see if I can find anything interesting there. This cars is damn mystery - everything seems fine but it just doesn't run!

Generally I would agree but for IS mk2 the grey and cream interior just doesn't work. Maybe particular shades they are using, maybe because they make half of the panels in that colour, but for some reason it just doesn't look right. As well, be it anecdotal evidence, but black interior is most durable. By 100k miles cream and grey looks like garbage bag, yet black 200k still looks almost new, maybe little bit shiny around the edges of driver's seat. I am not sure what it is, maybe it is leather itself, or maybe light coloured interiors just get much more dirty and has to be cleaned more often damaging the leather, or maybe opposite - they are simply not clean and that is why they look so bad. I had 4 IS250s and 3 of them had black leather and since the second one which had grey interior it was my firm requirement for the car to have black leather, because my grey interior was awful at just 40k miles. Given a choice of more unique colours I would take "Dark Rose" from IS mk3/RC, GS mk4 had similar, but even darker colour making it almost brown called "Cabernet", or dark brown called "Noble Brown". That is how I got my first IS250 in UK for literally the interest and difference in exchange rate after selling my old IS250, back in Europe. Basically I sold 2010 IS250 AWD for 22k Euros back in 2014, transferred the money to UK and converted into to GBP just before big EUR dip (I think ironically it was first russo-Ukrainian war sanctions with impacted Euro), that alone made me like 3k + some interest and I got 2008 IS250 without actually spending my own money. It was 122k miles in 2014 which was considered "high-mileage" for 6 years old car, but I bought it with confidence knowing it mostly been on motorway and this was best ever purchase. The car was like new and had no major issues all the way to 200k. This just support your point - avoid city cars, big mileage is good especially if it means easy motorway miles, and you get amazing discount compared to low miles city car, where you have to pay premium to get the car which is destroyed in short journeys on cold engine and broken city streets. As well it takes time to realise how unbelievable was that deal - £3950 for 6 years old IS... that is equivalent of buying 2016 IS300h for £4703 now (adjusted for inflation)! Again, ironically £4000 is what one would have to pay for 2006-2008 IS250 with ~120k miles now, the difference is that back then it was 6 years old car, but now it is 14+ years old for the same price.

Too low mileage is not great either, so it is waste of money... it is kind of strange how people in UK put mileage above else (I mean much more than in other countries).

I always said new ES would be great for premium taxi/airport transfers, just not a drivers car. Most bulletproof cars are modified by specialised companies, very few manufacturers actually does it themselves. I am aware Lexus make special projects from time to time like cabrio LS600h, but it isn't really normal.

yeah I often find it little bit annoying, because sensations press always mentions the make as long as it is luxury car... sort of trying to related with pundits who are maybe a little bit jealous. Thus you always read titles like "powerful BMW ended-up hugging the tree", but if it would have been say Vauxhall Astra or Ford Fiesta, then studently they just focus on something else "inexperienced driver, or distracted mum, or elderly driver" or something else but not the make. However if the make is mentioned in the title is always BWM, Audi, MB, Jaguar, Lexus and alike. In short - stereotypes are made by these news outlets, because over the time the only thing people remember is that every time there is high speed crash it is BMW, or young driver... or some sort of combination of two. I just personally don't like that i.e. making conclusions from incomplete or deliberately misrepresented information. And that is my point - no it wouldn't. Or even if it would, then car brand would not be anywhere in the sentence. It would be focused on something else "local kids, crazy old lady etc." They just know that mentioning luxury car brand is good click-bait, mentioning Fiat is bad for clicks.

You said it is not an action of "stereotypical Lexus driver" - I am just saying that car make based stereotypes are more often wrong than not.

Yes but assuming that because they drive Lexus they cannot be bad drivers is wrong assumption.

It just shows that stereotypes are more often wrong than not - idiots drives any makes of cars, Lexus included... so trying to assume driver behaviour from the car make is pointless.

Usually means that grease on gears is either dirty on thickened-up throughout the years. When mine started going slow and I just sprayed WD40 inside, moved it by hand in all directions to loosen-up the gears and that was enough. If that doesn't work, you may need to remove the glass and inspect what is happening inside, clean gears, use nice new grease and see if that helps. Worst case scenario you have dead motor with moves the mirror up and down, but because you say you hear clicking I assume it still works, just for some reason cannot overcome friction on the gears.

There are no gears on RC300h, it is CVT, so it is just "fake" ratios. I think quite big criticism is how slow the car is off the line and generally accelerating - in this case paddle shifts makes no difference whatsoever, probably slows down the car even further. Once you are up-to speed RC300h actually feels reasonably good, say between 50-70MPH, I have used paddle shifts on twisty A/B-roads and they actually "feel" good - you can create effect of engine braking and you could get a ratio which "feels" better to get out of the corners. Most importantly it is just how it feels, it doesn't actually make car any faster and it still works within a limits of engine power. All in all, paddle shifts are just gimmick on CVT and can only be used in very specific and limited use cases. As for MPG, hybrids should actually be impacted less by hills than normal ICEVs, if hybrid is design correctly it should generate power when going downhill via regenerative braking and then use that energy when going up-hill. I would still put most of the economy down to the driver, RC300h is just quite unfortunate model in this case - it looks like sports cars, so it is normal that it attracts the drivers who wants sporty car, but if you ty to drive it like sporty car, then not only it disappoints in terms of performance , but actually returns horrible economy. 300h drive train in essence is designed to be efficient and not fun to drive, as result if one drives it just leisurely it is "okey", but if one drives it as the car suppose to be driven then it can only disappoint.

It is actually more expensive than a fine nowadays, but the key benefit is that you don't need to disclose it on insurance (they can't check in any way) and that overall saves money. As of benefit of the course - not sure, mine was quite funny and the trainer was quite friendly, not at all trying to judge anyone, but rather to have open discussion of how to avoid penalty in future. He as well joked about some nonsensical claims about say braking distance. The only real thing I remember from the course was that government claims of braking distances originates from practical experiment from 1932 i.e. the time when cars could barely even reach 70MPH and these figures are still used in highway code to illustrate braking distances... which is kind of silly. At least this was like 8 years ago and I had to attend it because I was over by 2MPH in temporary 50MPH on motorway, at night, because of road works which were not even there! But overall I agree, given an option SAC is always better than 3 points + fine.

The driving automation is doing this, although our laws and actual roads are way behind to allow this to work properly. The automation is not difficult if the use cases being automated are fewer and simpler, because our roads are overcomplicated and frankly there are a lot of things on the roads which shouldn't be there it becomes much harder to automate. Basically we need to simplify the roads to automate the driving, significantly reduce the number of signs in use, unify the road design and application of rules etc. and caser could be fully autonomous even with current tech. But if we want to automate driving in current conditions (I would describe it as minefield), then this will take at least until 2050, or whenever general artificial intelligence is created.

Exactly...

I rather see them focusing on real issue like driver training, making the roads themselves better and safer etc. But maybe seeing somebody getting fined for weaving between the lanes, because they are trying to drink the coffee whilst smoking would put the smile on my face.

As I said - I see the opposite point, but when it comes to phones the rules feels arbitrary to me, as well I don't think they are proportionate. Another very important point is that holding the phone is not the part which is distracting, the conversation itself is - should they ban the hands free in cars then? Clearly they were designed by somebody who is unable to handle the phone, have not tried it whilst driving and does not understand the issue. Again I agree it is distraction, but not any more than any other distraction, so why only focus on them. Besides it seems like police in this case was found wrong by court and just doubled down on it, just to show that they can. It was not like previous law was insufficient, but now they as well want to make sure that filming accident from the car will be included. Note as well, that many rules applies even when you stationary, which I find particularly egregious and unnecessary. And finally, we don't have issue with traffic deaths in this country despite what "safe roads" activists would like to make out of it. Sure - any deaths are preferably avoided, but side effect of vaccine killed more people last year than road traffic accidents, yet nobody is talking about that. What I mean is that things don't exist in isolation - road accidents are bad and deaths are bad, yet I still think that personal responsibility should be the way to prevent them, rather then pre-emptive penalties for certain behaviour which may or may not cause an accident.

Same here - I see your point, but I view it as personal responsibility first and foremost. I would not fight speeding (completely arbitrary by the way) or drink driving limit (completely personal) either - if one can't handle fast car, or decide when they are not capable of driving themselves they will get punished by "careless or dangerous driving". Let people be responsible for their actions rather than babysitting them - that is my point. As well I disagree with premise that using the phone is more dangerous or distracting than eating sandwich or smoking. I am not boasting, but I find it harder to eat sandwich (especially if it is sort of crumbly) than it is too hold the phone. As well I been in the car when my friend crashed it because cigarette ash burned his balls... was low speed crash in parking lot, but still... I have nearly driven of the roads because of hot coffee leaked through the side of the lid... Sure I would not do that now (silly teen times), but my point - any distraction in the car is potentially dangerous, having kids or attractive woman in the car are dangerous... so I don't understand and I don't appreciate this obsession of legislating just for phone.

And this is my biggest issue with all individual charges for phone use etc. There is already an offence called "driving without due care and attention" or worse brother of it "dangerous driving" and it cover all scenarios, no matter how where and when you get into accident, if you were driving without due care and attention, then you are at fault. Why create additional over the top, single use offences for using smartphone, phone, smart watch, something reminding an electronic device, fake radio, child's toy or hell knows what. These very specific laws always felt to me like "old fashioned" people could not get grips of modern world, so they decided to single out some modern gadget or technology, because they don't understand it. After all it is all the same - it does not matter if you talk on the phone or you don't, of if you drink coffee, or smoke, or eat sandwich... if that was the cause of your accident, then you were simply driving without due care and attention. Now just think for a second - what do you think is more distracting, eating a sandwich which is dripping tuna juice, smoking cigarette with high temperature ash falling between your legs, or just holding mobile phone next to your ear in automatic car whilst cruising on motorway? I am not endorsing any, but I just feel there is some weird obsession with mobile phones when it comes to creating highly specific single use laws for no good reason whatsoever. And yes - I kind of I imply that as long as it doesn't cause accident, nobody should be bothered about it, we are all adults and all should be mindful of our actions. Overly details, single purpose laws like this just feels like "nanny state". Other note - in my experience, when driving it isn't "the holding" of the device which is distracting, it is usually the conversation itself i.e. you can be using fully hands free device (say via car integration) and you can be just as distracted if not more if you are asked complex question, or you been told very sad or very happy news. In short the conversation is what is distracting and it has nothing to do with the device which is used. Besides this is kind of slippery slope, because I argue that accepting, rejecting or ending the call with the buttons on the steering wheels is just as distracting as using the phone itself. In summary, it seems to me this was pointless law, for offence which was misunderstood by people who don't understand the technology and impact of it. They are trying to fight the device, for the issue which is linked to persons ability to drive due to the conversation which is taking place... it can't be more wrong.

That has more to do with comfort and sound insulation rather than speed. in smaller, cheaper car it seems you going so fast even when doing 30MPH, but in luxury car there is less noise even at 60MPH. Especially noticeable in situation like yours, going 60MPH on national limited and then have to slow down to 30MPH when entering some village... and it feels like car is not moving, seems like you can almost open the door and step outside, despite still going like 40MPH. You will get used to it, but I agree when you move into more luxurious car first time, which has some grunt and as well automatic (on manual you kind of know, because you have to change gears), it is very easy to forget what speeds you doing. First time for me was similar, but I didn't get fine - it was 60km/h street and there was annoying old merc stuck in outside lane, when he moved over I just accelerated "a little bit" to get past him just for few seconds and next thing I see is police car behind the bush and I am doing 110km/h. Lucky for me they didn't have camera, so just stopped me, quizzed me for some time, like "so where you were going so fast", but ended-up issuing no fine, because they haven't recorded any speed, just visually noticed that I was going way faster.

Interesting times, as it seems there were several threads concerning IS250 and some sort of ECU problem. I was fighting mine since December without much luck. My assumption would be - bad ground somewhere or damage to wiring which causes communication issues between the modules. I would not want to speculate too much as I could not even solve my own issue, but strangely I had O2 sensor issue before the car went completely dead.

Yes calliper repair kits are sadly hard to come by, or has to be ordered from US etc. This is strange as sort of most basic thing one would expect to do from time to time. But I guess they make more money from replacing entire calliper.