Linas.P

Yesterday I had two different mobile mechanics to come over to look at the car and they just confirmed my diagnosis. There is spark, fuel and engine seems to want to start, but after first crank ECU just cuts the spark. Leading into conclusion that it is something to do with immobiliser, basically they could not tell what to do further, so didn't even wanted to charge me for diagnostics as I basically just asked them to confit that it is what I think it is. Both suggested that my next step is to call locksmith who can program the keys to the car and for them to try to reset the key and pair it again. Now second guy actually asked great question - he said "have you ever started the car inside this garage" and it made me realise that indeed I have never started it inside. From the time when it was delivered I parked it outside and only on the evening before the service I parked it inside for the first time. Which then led to the theory that maybe there is interference in the garage and my issue literally being the location where car is parked. We took the car out and although it looked like it was about to start it still failed. However, all that said I thought that maybe I should try re-syncing ECU after taking car outside. Because if indeed that is the problem, then me re-syncing the ECU inside wouldn't have ever worked, it tries to re-sync, but there is interreference with the key, so it obviously can't finish adding the key. Anyway that is the theory I have and I will try to push the car outside again and resync ECU in place where I have started it last time and see how it goes. Failing that my last option is locksmith and clearing and adding the keys again.

I don't think there is anything to suggest it is BMW hybrids that are catching fire here. I am not saying they are not, but let's not jump to the conclusion without seeing the breakdown of what cars and how old cars were causing those fires.

There are two perspectives - "why should anyone be entitled not to be delayed" vs. "why should anyone be entitled to delay others", regardless of which question one likes to ask or agrees with. I think we can agree at least that both are the valid. Likewise, in general it would not be hard to agree that "efficiency" is a positive thing and "delay" is negative thing, that is regardless of how first is achieved or what caused the second one. I am sure people will choose their side, but here is my justification of why I think people should be entitled not to be delayed, instead of being entitled to delay others. This is simply most logical and efficient outcome - if people don't feel entitled to delay others, then they won't and the others then don't need to be entitled to anything, because they are not being delayed, so the issue get's automatically solved. Not delaying each other is just most efficient way to use the common infrastructure. Car following bicycle, or multiple cars stopping for pedestrian are just not efficient. That is not to say pedestrians and cyclists are not more vulnerable, or that car drivers should not be more responsible to make sure they do as much as they can to protect other users, especially those who are vulnerable. It just means we should not create rules and situations, where more vulnerable is in greater dangers, or relies on anybody else but themselves to be safe. Because what this will cause - is that we all will have to drive way slower than needed, because we will have unnecessary burned of responsibility which is placed wrong and thus we will be delaying each other more and system overall will be less efficient. In contrary, system will be inherently safer and more efficient if we place responsibility where it belongs and we all as society will benefit for it. That is the reason mentioned by Philip - companies have to be efficient to survive, so they strive to remove inefficiencies and inherent risks, and that is how they become successful. Why can't we as a nation try to be more efficient?

That is only the case if they don't have specialised foam for electrical fires. And I assume most of fire departments don't. Basically they need specialised chemicals and tools to put out those fires. I don't think it is so much to do with toxicity (even thought is is defiantly toxic), but simply because if you apply water on burning EV, the battery short even further and burn even more fiercely. Electrical fires of any sorts (not necessary car related) are difficult ones to put out.

I don't believe TB has it's own memory, whatever is there for TB would be part of ECU learning (if there is anything) and resetting ECU would do it. Remember this is Lexus made with amuricans in mind and their issues with "unintended acceleration", so it is possible they just built in some delay in throttle response and you can't improve it further without throttle controller. As well you have "sport" button, which should somewhat improve response, but I hate that it makes car to hand on hears for longer and stay in low gear when you lift off.

In such case why create "hierarchy" and imply that in cases of both new/updated rules pedestrians and cyclists would do something that would endanger them. The rules already said that if pedestrian started to cross they had a right, that was sufficient and worked well. Sure there were drivers trying to push pedestrians of the roads and there were pedestrians who stepped into the road without looking, but overall it worked. Current rules just sounds - "you have a right, go ahead and try and see how it ends, remember if car crashes into you then it was their fault". I was surprised they didn't say that you have to repeat "I was right all along" all the time whilst lying and waiting for ambulance. The situation on the ground is that pedestrians already don't care and in more urbanised setting (or may it be just London) they seems like they have death wish. And I don't mean few... I mean majority, you may have different experience and different opinion, but this is my experience and my opinion. I think pandemic as well had a play, working from home, walking locally, there were less cars and people just forgot about common sense. And I didn't have working car since September, so as you can imagine I am walking much more... and I just look at what other pedestrians do and thing - "are you * serious!?" They just step in front of the car through the red and most importantly car stops! And I stand there on the pavement like idiot and car is still waiting for me to cross as well! Car drivers are not angels, sometimes they do no slow down, or slow down and beep and they do all sorts of mistakes, but again opposite to the other groups - they mostly follow the rules. Probably most annoying for me is not indicating and that is any time ever where I ever get in trouble, I see the car and just assume car goes straight and it turns into me. Most of the time it's nothing, they just slow down, but few times they beeped and showed some gestures and were shown gestures back... but key is indicator here, would they have indicated I would have known they turning and nothing would have happened. But that happens ... maybe once or twice in a year. Pedestrians literally trying to kill themselves happens every single day, every time I walk to the shop and at every crossing. As for awareness campaign - I have a theory. Apparently, yougov did survey and only 30% of the drivers knew about the changes... so I guess that translates to 0.01% of pedestrians. This "hysteric" on news is basically awareness campaign - because if they say "few small updates to the rules are coming" everyone will ignore it. When they blow it out of proportion that "motoring ends as we know it", then more people become aware of it, some get enraged and as far as they care - any publicity better than none, regardless positive or negative. I agree that no driver wants to hurt pedestrian, and if not for pedestrian, then at very least for their car... scraping stuff of your car is not fun, and now you may even have to wait until after you get out of jail to do it. So it is double not cool, because it will be dried on by then (I am joking alright?!). However you premise - "waiting is not that bad" is just poor argument. If there is waiting there is issue, no matter if it is 2 seconds or 2 hours, perception does not matter, what matters is that there is something holding you up on the road and it shouldn't be. If the roads are well designed and the rules are correct, there simply should be nothing holding you up. So what we should look at is not how long it takes, but why it happened and how to make it not happen again. I personally have never held-up another road user knowingly a second longer than I absolutely have to. If I am overtaking then I will move over as soon as possible, or I will accelerate to match the following car speed before it has to slow down for me, and I will slow down after moving over. If I am cycling, I move to let the cars pass right away... I never cycle for 2 entire minutes with car behind me, this is just ridiculous suggestion that such thing would be acceptable... I mean in my case that could be 5-10 seconds maybe, but most of the time I have quit good perception, so I move over before car even needs to slow down... (and yes I do cycle). And as a pedestrian I already said - I stay further from the kerb to wait for the gap in traffic, so that even the most cautious drivers won't stop for me and only then cross after looking for cars and making sure that I won't delay anyone. Sure it does happen that there is simply no gap in traffic, in such case I press the button or walk right-up to the crossing and wait for car to stop for me, raise the hand to thank and quickly pass, not running, but the quickest possible walking pace without jogging. And I expect the same in return from all road users. I give them benefit of doubt, perhaps they haven't seen me - so say depending on situation 15-30s... after that they starting to ***** me off. Let's say I just hate inefficiency and the purpose of roads and HC for me is about efficiency... it is not walk in the park and it is not a leisurely drive, it is system with rules you have to follow and that is the only way it stays working. Finally, yes I agree that 90% of cyclists don't want to cause inconvenience... what about those 10% who literally come out in the morning with single goal on their mind to cause inconvenience. What we do about them, what can be done about them, because all they do falls into advisory part of HC, they can't be prosecuted, they can't be fined, they can't even be found... and there is nothing we can do about them. Car drivers behaving badly... we can, there are rules, we know VRN, we can report them... with cyclist we can't. There is portion of rules, which can be abused and because it is guidance we can't do anything about it. Cyclist can literally cycle in the middle of the road in front of you for miles and not move over and you can't do anything about it. How long will they delay me... maybe 2min, maybe 5min.. 8...15... doesn't matter why they can delay me at all, why not define it like it is defined for motorist you MUST or MUST NOT... "you MUST stop at fist safe location to let the traffic pass, you MUST NOT delay traffic unnecessarily and for longer than 1 minute" how about that?" I am sure 90% of cyclists already does that, like 99% of drivers don't drive through the red, but we still need a rule to deal with that 1% who do. Same we need a rule to deal with that 10% of cyclist who do. And if you say I feel entitled not to be unnecessary delayed - yes I feel like it and I think everyone should do as well. Some delays happens and I and everyone accepts it, but if somebody are deliberately wasting your time and unnecessarily delaying you, I just can't see any argument why this should be acceptable ever.

Some commentary from legal expert, although just his opinion as there isn't much in terms of the law that changes. I would note he is very very pro-cyclist (cycling himself from what I have seen) and very very reserved when it comes to motorists, and although from time to time I watch his commentary on legal question, I have few times disliked his video for being overly negative to drivers and sort of making hard line of some basic motoring offences. However - even he think that these rules will cause more confusion than help:

Not sure how mileage translates into km service, so I just assuming you 60k is same as our 40k. That what comes-up for RC300h 40k miles: https://l1-movies.lexus-europe.com/media/downloads/GBEN/Lexus - Full 40, 60, 80 Service Summary 0518.pdf Vs. Intermediate https://l1-movies.lexus-europe.com/media/downloads/GBEN/Lexus - intermediate Service Summary 0518.pdf I am sure if you go your Irish Lexus site then Service section it will have correct pricing and same information in kilometres.

Nothing comes-up depending on what I search, if search term is broad then discussion is always about lost keys and needing to register the keys. If I search for crank/wont start - then it goes into park/fuel pump/injector topics. If I search more specifically for B2799, then there are dozen similar threads without conclusion... people trying to reset ECUs, pull out dashes and all sort of things and there is never any solution. Or I simply find my own threads here or on reddit. Found this document, which is for LS430, but look at the case 4... "shift lever not in P position when engine start attempted", sadly it does not have hints what to do in this case: https://lexusy.pl/LS430/rm/rm1049e/m_05_0754.pdf No I don't think my door was open, but as I have said I may have shifted before engine fully started. Actually, fed up with this issue, got few local call out mechanics booked for next few days. No diagnosis no fee... But I have very low hopes for it and kind of feel like I will need to watch what they are doing, or else I won't be able to put the car back together 😄

Yes, I guess your only option is to see it on dyno, and check that there are no funny dips low down in the power band. As for ECU reset - simply disconnect the battery for 10 minutes and it should re-learn.

Looks beautiful. It is very different car from supercharged/turbocharged Germans... you need to rev it out to feel the power. Not much happens below 4000RPM... I mean by "not much" it still has more power than IS250 at red line, but from 4000RPM it really becomes alive. So you probably need to adjust your driving style a bit. Or maybe there is some weird Japanese restrictor which doesn't allow it to make whole power?

Where else would you like the badges to be? 😄

Or indeed the engine... that would be the car on my short-list 😄 I wonder if dealership got scammed... traded the car and owner was like... "this car has all the options - Mark and LeWison audio". But I guess they should have known better.

Yes.. agreed, but not in case of accident - i.e. rejecting TP liability, because subwoofer was too big. Although, if car is written-off in the accident, only expect £2000 for what the car was worth, not for all the expensive equipment inside. I guess there is only option to remove it before scrapping.

I was wondering looking at over bits... Painted callipers, RC-F badge... maybe previous owner was "handy one" and bought ML system of ebay from some older car (say IS250) and fitted some parts of it and then felt the need to put the badges on the speakers. This would obviously make no sense, because premium 10-speaker system in RC would be better than ML in old IS250. But who knows. Because it is not like you can go an buy ML badges and ML generally don't put badges on the speakers, except the one on the sub-woofer in the rear. EDIT ... no ... I was actually wrong, you can indeed buy ML badges, there is nothing that you can't buy on AliExpress 😄 https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001159540957.html

Both premium and ML has amps, just on premium it is unbranded, and on ML it says ML. Only the poverty line entry level horrible 6-speaker system does not have amp. Just now realised what you meant... indeed. I am surprised this midlands dealer didn't list it as RC-F 😄

I don't know how immobiliser suppose to work either. But if you leave the key outside of the car, then it eventually cuts out the engine. It has happened to me once on old car. My girlfriend had keys in her bag and we were going with friends in 2 cars. At some point we stopped for coffee, she went to sit in another car, then we set-off and when I stopped by the next traffic light car just cut-out - and on display it said "no key - shift into P range" 😄 So immobiliser can shut the running engine. Why it would cut it in fashion it does... I have no idea. As for air/fuel ratio my understanding that ECU takes reading from both Bank 1 and Bank 2, so even if one sensor is faulty it should at least start the engine. Yes, that was my assumption as well and it was the last thing I tried - simply disconnecting the sensor.

Just careful, I think above rules applies to you as well 😅

Same symptoms, nothing has changed over the time. If I start the car from OFF, then it fires once and stalls. When it stalls, if I try cranking it again, then it just continues craning for ~5-10 seconds without me touching anything, but does not fire and just stops. Same applies if, I put the car in ACC or IG - with single press on start button it cranks for 5-10s by itself and then stops. Does not fire. There are 4 "O2" sensors, 2 in each bank, 1 before cat and one after. The code P0031 is for Sensor 1, Bank 1 and there were not other codes. I have tried disconnecting the sensor, re-syncing the ECU and trying to start the car again. Nothing has change same symptoms.

Spoken with service manager and Lexus won't even guestimate. Basically, the advised I got was that if I bring the car to them, then they can charge me £195 for 1 hour of diagnostics and call me back if they can't find the issue or with estimate how long it is actually going to take to diagnose. So basically for Lexus just to look if they can even diagnose the car would be ~£400, without any promise of finding anything 😪

Even that isn't really the case anymore. Sure it was the case 20-30 years ago when alloy wheels were expensive option and when people were stealing them, but nowadays most cars have alloy wheels. It was required to report if such wheels were fitted, just because the fact they wheels themselves could be stolen. As well, despite I am sure some insurance companies have tried to use this an excuse not to pay out, it was not the case that wheels invalidated your insurance in accident. It was rather the case that if you haven't reported the wheels and they got stolen insurance company would reject the claim as they didn't know they are insuring the wheels. Nowadays, as long as wheels are correct spec for the car and generally car is road worthy condition, I would not report them. When I had 18" IS mk3 wheels on IS mk2 which had an option of 18", but came from factory with 17" I have actually called my insurance anonymously and asked that question and they said not to report it. The wheels were correct size and they were Lexus wheels so again I could have said that they were on the car when I bought it. It is the same reason why Insurance requires to declare sound systems. Not that it somehow makes car unsafe, but because say you have £2000 car and £10000 sound system in it. They assume their liability to be £2000, but you fancy sound system get's stolen and you claim £10000 - obviously insurance won't cover it, unless explicitly declared and insured. But if you crash the car, then they won't come and say - "aha... aftermarket amplifier in the boot, your insurance is invalid!". As for LED, lights - they neither make car more desirable to steal, not change how the lights work. I agree it could be argued either way, but I would go with my advise of simply deciding what to say if challenged. I would got with saying that it was fitted when I got the car and I don't know (and cannot be expected to know) if they are standard or aftermarket.

And that may not even happen, it could be that one simply replaces old 15W incandescent with 0.8W LED with same light out-put and literally the only thing which changes is more modern technology which is more reliable. As well as I said, when it comes to rear lights, I would not even be able to tell without taking the bulb out whenever it is LED or not... and even if I do take it out then how to I know is this is factory fitted or aftermarket? Many cars actually comes with LED lights now.

That is true when it comes to dipped beam, either fake-xenon or not well designed LED lights in non-projector lights have wrong pattern and illuminates road incorrectly, as result blinding other drivers. But again just to be clear this is not because they are LED, but because they are incorrectly designed, cheap or simply not deigned to be run in reflector type light. If you have projector headlights, then in theory that should not be a problem. This is very unlikely to invalidate your insurance thought. One - if you going to get into crash it is going to be hard to prove what lights were fitted, who fitted them and whenever they were road legal. As I said, there is theoretical risk, because assuming lights are so bad that they can invalidate MOT, then the car was not road legal and insurance becomes automatically invalid. This is however much more likely to happen if you lights does not work, rather than are too bright. For example in the past I have replaced side lights on IS250 with compatible LED bulb, which simply matches Xenon colour (4000k) and is more convenient because it lasts forever and you don't need to worry about it blowing out. Obviously, I have not reported this to insurance, because it is not a mod, just more modern technology which replaces older and worse technology.

Fake m-sport (or f-sport) badges is sort of more common, but this is first time I have seed somebody trying to fake ML... in one hand is not known enough to make much impact anyway, but in other hand it is probably easier to fake as most people would not know the difference.

Just noticed this car popped in... and as far as I remember this is cheapest RC300h ever: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202201241694213 Overall, car quite tired, scratched-up, very high mileage, trash tires. kerbed wheels - so I am sure more experienced buyer would walk away from it anyway... however there is clear "fraud" going on - it has premium sat-nav which comes with decent 10 speaker system, however it does not have ML. It is clear that seller is really trying to highlight that it apparently does, with fake stickers of ML system and several close-up pictures showing it is ML. This is not how ML system look on RC!