Linas.P

Yeah... and the other thing I would say... there are no wrong cars, there are just wrong prices. Would I own RC300h - yes absolutely, if it would come at the right price, same as I would own RC-F if it would come at the right price, same as I did buy RC200t, because it was right price. What that right price would be? For today I would not pay more than £10-12k for RC300h and we all know this won't happen, market as it is won't ever allow it to be sold at that price. I bought RC200t for £15,500 in 2019 and that was the price which back then sounded like too good deal to miss (and it absolutely was). It was 2.5 years old car back then, so if that trend would have continued I think it would be reasonable to expect 5 years old cars now for £10k... and that would be good deal nowadays. So again, I don't think there are absolutely unacceptable cars, but price is big part of what I would be willing to compromise on. When I see 5 years old RC300h at £20k+ I just know this is not the compromise I can make.

I have already argued this case to the hell and back... but this view point of "cheap and cheerful" sports car just doesn't resonate in here for some reason. With RC is either all or nothing... And I never thought I would say it, but it I started to realise there is such thing as "too much power" and RC-F is that when it comes to daily driven car. Sure RC-F power is very manageable and comes very predictably and you can moderate it very well, so it may never feel like it, but RC350 would practically do all the same, just without the price tag. This almost the same argument as 300h owners make - "fast enough", but "fast enough" at different level. I can still fully use potential of RC350 to the level where that extra power would provide tangible benefit for me over say RC200t, but I truly can't benefit from RC-F more than from RC350.

Maybe that is because they were made in 50s, 60s and 70s? Like yes it was then and this is now... Not sure how that could be used as argument? But I agree and said before that Lexus bringing RC300h is not a mistake, it is mass-market model and they would have sold most of 300h even if they would have offered 350... not offering 350, that is an issue. And how big of an issue it is depends on how much Lexus values their "enthusiast" clients... turns out not too much! So this is direct result - enthusiasts are not happy! Obviously, maybe Lexus calculation in UK was that we are not "enthusiast" enough, because enthusiasts they were looking for would have no issue buying RC-F... which is probably even more insulting. And you absolutely right most of MB C Coupe I see are either C200 or C220d, because that is what you can get for £249/Month PCP, maybe even £199... so that is what most people get. C43 AMG costs only £15k more, but on PCP it is £650/Month! For BMW 430i actually is not that rare, but 440i is similar story.

But why would that be causing harsher shifts? Poor fuel economy perhaps, bit sluggish start, especially when cold - that would make sense. As well it won't matter what fuel is being used, it would be either continuously poor or all-over the place is intermittent. But if it is harsher gear changes with only particular fuel, then it kind of doesn't make sense. Sadly I can't provide the answer, but I am thinking along the lines that fuel and shifts are unrelated, and harsh shifts are rather coincidence related to something else.

Just a funny thing I noticed when booking cab to airport... somebody was looking for fancy stock car picture and what they found was Lexus IS and not even any IS, but IS-F nonetheless. Anyone fancy to be picked-up in one from airport? I am sure this would be one of "express transfer" options 😄

But... if nuclear fusion would become reality, then hydrogen basically becomes the best fuel. 100% clean and recyclable and energy consumption to make it basically irrelevant, because nuclear fusion is near limitless power source, the only issue is how to transport that energy and hydrogen is clearly the best way. In some way that is already true, because a lot of nuclear fission energy is already wasted, at times even 40-60%... and it would already be possible to convert that otherwise wasted emery in hydrogen. Economically it is even more viable, because in theory we can just build loads and loads of nuclear power plants so where underground, like even in desert or north/sought poles, just solely to convert water into hydrogen and then use LPG carriers, running themselves on hydrogen to transport it back to centres of population. The only reason why nuclear power is so expensive is because we have issue with public opinion and all sorts of groups tries to stop it, which inevitable makes it very expensive to build the reactor and even more expensive to decommission it, but if reactor is in the middle of nowhere and nobody has objections to it, then we even today would be able to make very very affordable and very very low carbon hydrogen in bulk.

No... in terms of price it isn't. Starting price for RC was £36k (entry level "luxury" trim), 420d was like £32k in 2014, whereas 430i was £35k. 430i M-Sport costed ~£37k and that was like for like comparable with RC200t F-Sport and 300h F-Sport which both costed £37,495 and £37,995 if memory serves. What is even point of this discussion. Are you saying RC isn't sports car or you agreeing that it is as sluggish as much cheaper BMW 420d? Well yes... that is the problem, if BMW 430i would be as slow as 420d, then it would be right to say it is "not very sporty"... right? And how is RC350 not a "target for Lexus customers", when Lexus made and successfully sold RC350 across the world and overall 2GR-FSE (the 350) is one of the most popular engines and mainstay of the brand? The last bit is true, but that is future plans and not so relevant for discussing what RC300h was or wasn't.

Isn't it funny ... that you bring your dirty car to Lexus and somehow they manage to return it even worse after washing (all scratched-up, smeared-up and with hard water spots) 😄 Last time I literally told them not to wash it, but they still forgot about it and did it anyway. Didn't want to make big scene out of it, so just mumbled to myself...

Don't complain to me. Lexus themselves branded the car as sports car... and if they say so, then I treat it like sports car and compare it to other sports cars. 300 in the name as well means it should be comparable to other "3L" cars like BMW 430i. You can't have it both ways - either it is Sports coupe or it isn't. Lexus says it is, so it gets fair criticism it deserves for being sluggish. As well... what is "luxury"? I don't want all out "sports" car like say Porsche Cayman, because it is too basic for me, but "luxury" as well means "effortless acceleration" for me... car fast enough that I wouldn't care reaching the limit of it's power. That is part of luxury for me... it may not be for you, but then whose "litany" it is. Or somehow your opinion carries more value than mime?

Well... the compromise you need to make for it is simply to have RX or NX on the side 😄

Well... one will certainly be able to afford RC-F, before they can afford LC. And LC despite me absolutely loving it (best car I have ever driven) is very very compromised car, you can't have LC as sole car in household, you must have something else e.g. boot in the car just doesn't exist, to the point where you can't even go shopping in it. Whereas RC with folding seats is relatively practical car - I went hiking in it, it fits two mountain bikes in the back etc. Once you in the market for LC, then honestly there is very little difference between hybrid and V8 price, just with V8 you get all the joys of V8 and with hybrid you get none of the benefits. Road tax still high, it still isn't practical or economical and driving experience is just not the same. Kind of explains why V8 commands £10k premium in UK, all the rest being equal. If Lexus would have made RC450h... that would have been another story... it would have been very unique and interesting car to own.

Large group of people don't care how car drives (but get's very offended if you state this fact), so I can't say RC300h shouldn't be available, because for many people it is just "good enough". Probably like Phil said - it is 80/20 rule and both of us are firmly in that 20% group. So the problem is not existence of RC300h, the problem is lack of choice for those buyers who would be RC350 type of buyers. It is just ridiculous that Lexus didn't think it would be beneficial to bring that car here, considering they already have it and they already make it and they even make it in RHD for Japan and Australia. And even by sale numbers it would have always been that way 74% 300h, 5% RC200t, 20% RC350 and 1% RC-F. Now you either have to go with 80% of slower car or squeeze 20% into way faster and way more expensive car. And here I think again you right - for IS it wasn't so much of an issue. Desirable, but not critical. Practicality and fuel consumption is way more important for family car than it is for "sport coupe". Yes Lexus made questionable decision marketing IS300h as "sports" executive car, because there is nothing sporty about it, but it is less of an issue for entry-lux saloon. Same power plant in coupe is just unacceptable and it sort of reflects in poor sales of RC - in Europe it just didn't have the right engine.

EE - provided by work, so I don't care too much. Network coverage is spotted as well, seems to work mostly ok, but for some reason fails in our office in Canary Wharf which is weird. I always thought Vodafone had best coverage, but I might be wrong.

That is not the point. Point is, because it is RC-F aka sort of top of the range model... every single part comes at premium. Brakes are brakes, but RC-F one is £1700, yet for some reason very similar size brakes in GS300h are £450. And sure, maybe brakes are bad example, because now there are aftermarket alternatives, but for every single part you will have to pay 3 or 5 times more, just because it is meant for "RC-F". And even then £441 for just discs is ludicrous money... what is it on IS250? £80... and even then when ECP has discounts it's cheaper. Other thing to note - big issue for RC300h is expectations. If it would be some cheap hatchback, not overly aggressively styled, then one would drive it and would be like... yeah "meh" outside matches the inside nothing to see here. But RC really looks beautiful and fast even at stands still, interior is special place to be in and you expect it wool be special car to drive, but when you try suddenly nothing comes out of it... and that contrast is what makes it feel worse than it actually is.

DENSO FK20HBR11 is correct, question is if they are genuine. 20W50 would be terrible choice of oil, especially that 20 part, this is sort of "classic" car oil, definitely not for modern engine and would result in excessive wear when cold (which is already the most damaging part of the engine cycle). I have used Mobil1 ESP extra long-life 0W40 with great results. In short the lower is the the first number (cold) and the higher is the second number (warm) the better. So 0W40 or 5W50 is good oil, 20W50 is trash oil (except of very limited classic car niche), the only issue with "multi-grade" oil (all oils nowadays are multi-grade) is that the wider is the gap, the more additives there are in the oil, and the more additives the quicker the oil will lose it's spec. For example 5W20 could have very thin base oil and relatively small amount of additives, so even when additives fail it will remain thin oil, which is good for shorter trips and colder weather... say after 6 months it will be 10W15. However, if you take 5W50 (which is considered racing oil - protecting well when engine is warm hence W50), then it will degrade into something much thicker, because base oil for it is much thicker, say 30W40, which is horrible for cold start. In short if you go with "aggressive" multi-grade, then you need to replace it more often, ideally every 3000-6000 miles or 3-6 month, otherwise stick with good quality 5W30. I would replace it every 6000 miles anyway, because direct injection engines are picky on oil.

I am sure the engine won't be your problem, but how about £1700 front disks? As for seats folding - yes sorry, that is only for RC-F.

RC200t gearbox is fine, but combination between 8 gears and engine which only makes power between 2000-4000RPM is what kills it - constantly hunts for gears and is never in the right gear. It only starts driving when you already at 50MPH and then pull quite well to ~110MPH (which isn't very useful in UK). RC200t has one distinct advantage which is folding rear seats, this makes it surprisingly practical car and I hate that neither RC-F, nor RC300h has this option. I was thinking that it would have been even better if RC would have been made as "liftback" as it would be even more practical without any downsides, but it wasn't t be. As for RC300h, that is spot on - looks fast when stationary, but when you drive it is better to forget you are in "sports" coupe, one needs to drive as if they always "hypermiling" it, that sort of drive style works well. Chassis is good, handling is actually good with adaptive suspension in F-Sport, but otherwise very underwhelming. Fuel consumption is poor on motorway, throttle response is poor in city, but it is actually reasonably enjoyable to drive on 50-60MPH A-Roads, mostly because again handling and chassis is good, you can carry speed through the corners and it is not too bad. Even eCVT kind of works, because it gives instant response and you can change engine braking/torque when cornering quite well. Waiting for RC-F to reach 20k... that would be my goal as well, but the problem is that by the time they do they will be 10 years old and very tired, especially the cheap ones. So one thing is to get reliable Lexus sports car when it is under warranty and another, getting one 10 years old without warranty. And trust me bills on RC-F can escalate quickly. And that is key issue with not having RC350, it would be fast enough without high maintenance of RC-F. P.S. it is funny when people come here with their honest opinion and state "yes I tried 300h, I just didn't enjoy it" and they are called "Clarkson" and then accused of not having "right" opinion and "failing to accept other opinion". 300h is sluggish what you guys don't get about it? Is not car for everyone, certainly not for somebody who wants responsive and "fun to drive" sports car.

I just can't be satisfied with somebody else washing my car, never found anyone who does acceptable work by my standards.

Not an official option by Lexus for sure, as well not all badges can be removed e.g. F-Sport badges have holes in fenders, so you can't "de-badge" them, but most of engine designations can be removed.

He said it was done in July... unless it was done wrong.

I would not say SUVs in particular, generally all moderns cars are a bit annoying to wash and to detail, because of all fake vents and little plastic details serving no purpose except of trapping dirt. For example it took me ~16 hours to fully detail IS250, probably 40 hours to detail RC and I reckon I can do good job in just 4-6 hours on old LS400. SUVs obviously have added challenge of reaching over the car and often has extra bit of "rugged" lucking plastics surrounding the wheel arches. I have washed Toyota CH-R, which is basically UX and it was annoying, there is no single "body line" you can follow and it seems almost like race cars with all sorts of stupid vents. Although that said I didn't particularly enjoyed washing RC for the same reason. All in all, I don't think SUVs are particularly more difficult to wash and takes generally same amount of time per square metre of surface.

It is simple matter of locked and unlocked ECUs. Other makes have unlocked ECUs i.e. just need right cable and one can program it. other makes have locked ECUs, meaning you can't open the content, can't modify it and can't re-flash it. Ferrari for example is known of locked ECUs, Toyota is another one, German cars usually unlocked and uses Bosch which is widely known to be easily programable (although Ferrari uses Bosch as well, so there are more exceptions than rules). Another big reason - Toyota is not big on turbocharged cars, nor diesels and ECU tuning on NA engines is painless, in short if there would be demand people would figure it out, but there isn't. And for cars there are - say Supra Mk4, it is simpler to get aftermarket ECU anyway, so again no demand to unlock and figure out how OEM Denso ECUs works.

Yeah I would imagine it would be dangerous MOT failure and very embarrassing one as well. Still better than 6points and up-to £2500 per tyre if checked by police.

It doesn't actually look that bad (I mean in the sense of uneven wear). This is very common on IS and RC, but as well generally on RWD cars (BMW and MB have similar issues). In short one could expect the inner edge on the tyre to wear more, it could easily be 5mm on the edge, when the rest of the tyre is 7mm. Looking at your entire tyre is is quite clear it is not long for this world, so if the rest of your tyre is 3mm, then your edge is likely to be bald.

It is possible that they quoted you wrong price, maybe they quoted for say current RX450h and your car is older. Or maybe Sidcup automatically applied "essential" discount for cars over 5 years old. Don't forget that people who book the cars in for service have no clue about the cars (this is generally true for all makes), so they sometimes make mistakes and you need to raise it with them and I am sure they would charge you right price.