Linas.P

No. It is not what they mean with the question "have you ever been your policy refused/cancelled or your claim rejected". This only applies when you were found to lie on your policy i.e. claiming you have 5 years NCB and then they find out that you don't and refuse the policy. Or you say you didn't have penalties, but they find out you do and the cancel your policy. Or when you make a claim and they find out it is fraudulent. Basically you can read the question in a way - "have you ever committed fraud or lied to insurance and as result had your policy invalidated". So your policy has to be accepted first and then it has to be later cancelled/refused. That insurance refused to insure you outright is not what you need to declare. For example my previous insurance eSure has refused to insure me on RC200t. Not any sort of fault I made, I simply had IS250 which they were happy to insure for ~£600, changed the car called them to update the policy and they said - "sorry we can't insure it on this car". Simply do not mention such things on insurance, you got yourself in trouble for being unnecessarily detailed and reporting things which you don't need to report. It is kind of "appeal to ignorance argument" but it works just fine. Insurance says you have answer questions "honestly to best of your knowledge". In this case they ask does your car has modifications... what is modification? That is not defined, so you don't need to answer the question, LED may not be considered modification. Further, you may have bought the car with LED lights on it, so to best of your knowledge you may not even known they were there, or you didn't know that they are classed as modification. Plausible deniability. Now to be completely honest I don't think LED bulbs are modification. Modification in my mind is something that alters vehicle power or anything that in anyway can impact how the car drivers or how it appears to others. For example I would say tinting lights with dark wrap (or paint) them is modification, because it makes your lights less visible (it is known insurance have rejected claims because of this). Just putting LED bulb in place of incandescent one is not a modification, because from all practical points of view they function exactly the same as the bulb they replaced. Where LED might be an issue is dipped beam - they often spread the light pattern differently and might dazzle other drivers. To be clear this could invalidate insurance not because they LED, but because they could be deemed MOT failure, thus making your car not-road worthy, thus invalidating insurance. Now to be fair it is grey area, but as long as you know your story this should never result in claim being denied. And because you have LED bulbs where it doesn't matter, you should not even report that to insurance. Just note - this is not legal advise, just an opinion.

I literally put 4 starts there - you can imagine it to be any 4 letter word, but you picked the offensive one not me 😅

I didn't said you did, but I was called selective - for just picking what I like from the spec. sheet. And here you ignored 99% of what I said and just picked once sentence. I am so chilled I can't even begin to imagine... I am enjoying debate, just sad that people get so offended and upset. Offensive language? Why it would be offensive to hold something in my hand - it may have been "gold" under those ****... What? Apparently

You wouldn't even have a time to realise mate!

I can see you having too much fun here...

Sorry if that wasn't clear from the start... I always argue (debate) for the sake of it... and I mean why else? It is not like I have agenda, buying or selling ES, have stake in what Clarkson said. I just felt it was surprising people get upset of what I thought was very fair and insightful review, not only about the car, but as well about state of motoring in the western hemisphere I would say. And I don't feel the points are exaggerated either, because you looking at it with the eyes of commuter, not a person who want's to blast through scenic road in the car, not petrol head or enthusiast. As for hybrid battery, it does not charge anywhere quick enough to maintain the charge if you really drive it at anger... I am sure you could argue that "if you stay within speed limit..." - no I never suggested I would... that is not what I call "blasting through the country side". Is it illegal and some may even say immoral? Yes sure... although we still consider racers who drove their cars overnight to enter races like Le Mans to be motoring heroes. Well you may not consider them heroes, but I do. And what they were doing going in excess of 125MPH on public roads back in 30s and 50s. So I don't think we have same values and thus we have different view on the subject... Which is what Clarkson highlights - there are people who don't care about all these things petrol heads cares about and for them ES is great car. If anything that is positive, just depends on the perspective. ohh... ok.. so I am being selective? Because obviously several 1000s miles in other 300h cars.. that doesn't count? And yes I know ES300h has the updated version of the same engine... and it is more refined, or car is better insulated etc. That is all true. But where it matter for me... and that is POWER... I am sorry, but 10miles was more than enough for me to understand it is the same. I don't need to hold **** in my hand for a year to know it is **** that I have in my hand. It is efficiency focused engine without any soul and anything exciting about it. In essence "Prius in businessman suit". At the time I made a comment that it was "least offensive" driving experience out of all 300h I tried, perhaps because it is FWD and it was inherently not capable car, so engine didn't take anything away from experience, but since I have as well drove NX300h and I didn't mind that either. But I did indeed hated IS and RC300h, because I felt cars were good but the engine was what let them down.

Agreed... and that good will is build by little bit of respect... and that respect is build by appreciating that we all follow same and fair rules. Because rules are neither fair, nor same, nor cyclists (and other groups) are required to know them... then where the good will is coming from? Call me conspiracy theorist, but I don't think that is accidental. Why deal with cyclist demands for better infrastructure if you can just make the rules where cyclists and motorists hates each other and fights one another. Whilst these to groups fight each other government can relax and don't improve conditions for either of them. And this is just great example of how people treat "SHOULD and SHOULD NOT" vs. "MUST and MUST NOT"... if something is optional they simply won't bother, but if it would be legal requirement then they would follow it. Obviously provided they know it is legal requirement... which is kind of questionable as they don't have legal requirement to know it in the first place. And again same applies - when you know you can get £1000s in fines and lose your license then you have more motivation to read the rules and understand them, when it is just optional and possibility of getting fined is non-existent then I doubt even those cyclists who looked at the rules really bothers to understand them.

Not owned, but I had like 5 different IS300h for a day as courtesy car over the years - total mileage combined... I reckon maybe 600-800miles, I had RC300h for 24h test drive where I drove ~600miles and then for weekend - 1000+ miles travelled, I had NX300h for nearly 8 days, again as courtesy car when my RC was fixed under warranty, but didn't do much miles - maybe ~350 as it was covid lockdown, as for ES - I only drove it like 10 miles around dealership when it launched. Is that enough experience to to form an opinion? As well driving IS200t with IS300h and IS250 back-to-back and RC300h with IS250 back-to-back... IS250 has ~204HP and 242NM and at any given point, speed and situation it feels more powerful car and it definitely accelerates quicker. 200t pull like a train from 30MPH, but really struggles from the start, IS300h is kind of opposite - it jumps from stand still, but only up-to 5... maybe 10MPH. Now for sure I have not taken either on dyno or anything to compare, so be it anecdotal evidence of my bum, but it is sub-200HP car. 185HP sounds about right...

I have long argued similar case and have met same people making same claims over and over again. This is same thing as another thread about changes in the rules more generally. In summary the responsibility seems to be continuously moving away from individual actions and toward the drivers, thus making roads more hostile and removing duties from people up the arbitrary "hierarchy of road users" and pushing their duties down to motorists. They as well have decided on most invalid criteria for hierarchy as well - that is "vulnerability", rather than standard hierarchy of competence. I find it absurd that cyclists and on top of them pedestrians, who mostly have no understanding of Highway Code are considered superior and are given increasingly more authority. As Illustrated by Matthew - cyclists in highway code had provisions which allows them to control the traffic behind them, even thought they are not required to have any formal or even informal knowledge of applicable rules. Not only that - rules themselves are often impossible to follow (roads could be just too narrow to pass) and supporters of the rules just brushes this off as "and why you in the rush, what you can't wait for the suitable road for overtake?!" Completely disregarding that that suitable road could be miles away and whole column of motorists will be driving behind single cyclists who feels the need to be defensive and drive in the middle of the road. And this lack of consideration for motorist is infuriating - so they ask mutual respect and support, but as well expect motorist to be second class users?! Note as well, that in Highway code there are "key words", - MUST, means it is back by law, SHOULD means it is advise. If you go trough various sections, then you will see that most rules applicable to motor vehicles are MUST, whereas most of rules applicable to other users are SHOULD or just advisory. So realistically, there are very few rules which are enforceable on other users and really it depends at their discretion if they will follow them. The other claim often made on false premise is "and why should cyclists unnecessarily do something". Well that is the point - because there are no rules saying they MUST NOT, so they can do it for the sake of doing it, because they are jealous, or because they don't like the colour of your car, or because you looked wrong at them, or so they thought. Now it is fair to say there are idiots in ranks of both drivers and cyclists, but when it comes to drivers there is only so far they can go before they acting criminally and there are clear rules under which they can be made responsible... when it comes to cyclist idiots, there is very little you can do and such people can go very long way before they really cross the line. In summary, what I am saying - for mutual care and respect, we need mutually fair equal playing field. It was never never fair and recent changes made it even more unfair... or at very least the language encourages cyclist to be more defensive, more bold and put themselves out in front of the car. On political level it is gain for cycling ideologists, on level of society as a whole that loss for us all. Signed.

Yes proven by personal experience and by long list of owners who track they MPG in apps like fuelly. But obviously, you right because you always get 50MPG, so that must be right... What car makes is mystery, but it doesn't translate into acceleration, so that is irrelevant. How Lexus came-up with 215HP and when car makes it is not clear either. Besides this power would be limited for short burst of speed provided you have juice in the battery, if you want to blast thought scenic road, there would be no more electric assistance left after few miles when tiny battery would get depleted. All in all neither IS300h, nor ES300h doesn't drive like 200hp+/300nm+ cars. They may make that power in some specific test, but it does not translate into driving experience.

It would be interesting to know the age of the cars as well. Not sure the difference between BEV and Hybrids, but I am sure most of ICE cars on fire will be 10+ years old.

I agree Clarkson takes some artistic liberties and some of the statements are hyperbolic or exaggerated to make the article more enjoyable to read... funny enough this is exactly how like to describe things and get slacked for it a lot. For example I called IS300h sluggish and everyone jumped to "correct" me. Prius in a businessman suit - that simply means that cars was not designed for handling and performance, but to be reliable, dependable and efficient, like Prius just with more fancy looking body. Nobody cares what platform it is one, but that is very good way of conveying the feeling... how the car feels to drive. I think the comment is spot on. Absolutely not, ecomentalists considers even smallest speeding as massive crim and never-ending cameras are blocking all the roads. Here he explains that point - that it used to be "cool" to say how fast is your car and what speed you were doing another day. Now it is just not fashionable... now you may impress people more by claiming that your car is carbon neutral and that your seats are made from recycled plastic bags (that is my exaggeration for Tahara and Alcantara). This is indeed wrong, but because I don't have access to original article I don't know if it was Clarkson who made mistake or it was driving.co.uk... because this statement is not quoted, so it might be their mistake. As for the engine being made for efficiency that is fact, it is lazy engine, not rewarding to push and does not encourage you to push the car. As well it does not make 215hp, it makes 176hp and for 2.5L engine that is actually horrible. It is specifically detuned for high thermal efficiency and for hybrid use. So this statement again sport on - designed for efficiency and not power. And your example further proves the point - you focus on MPG, but not the acceleration other person may be happy with 32MPG, but V8 powering rear wheels (nothing wrong, just proves what you care about). This is exaggeration, but the point is the same - car is not designed to be agile or responsive and it foregoes that for efficiency and comfort. As well I may not be exact MPH, but it may be how the car feels - it does not feel like it is pushing you back to the seat or that you are accelerating at all. It is comfortable. So it wasn't dry and "documentary" review, it was piece of opinion which nicely tied in ES with current affairs in the world, where it is "wrong" to have fast, loud and exciting car. Nowadays people instead of being excited by seeing such car may instead scratch your paint or put a nail under your tyres - because they feel you are showing off.

And that is fair choice, but then why get upset about completely fair review which just points out exactly that - "ES not for people who value fast car and who instead would get something more practical".

Forgotten to add GS-F as well on can literally get GS-F for same price as new ES, because they are ~£40k when one comes on sale.

Sorry, my comment is 2 years too late. It was the case in 2020, for 2018 car with nearly no miles and even as low as £44k, but it seems like two last years did not happen. So perhaps now the cars which two years ago were 2 years old, are now 4 years old and 50k now. And like wise I still look into 2018 cars as if they are just 2 years old. Anyhow that does not change my opinion in the slightest - I would get older LC or RC-F over brand spanking new ES, because they are just way better cars which I would enjoy driving.

No, I don't think either, but that is same ideology - "we don't want truth, we don't want facts, we don't want objective stats, we don't want opinions which differs from ours, we only want to sit in our little cult and flatter each other about how amazing our cars are, if we ignore all different cars which may be better in their won way... and if anyone comes as says that perhaps our cars are not the best handling or not exciting... even if we admit to it ourselves, then they are not welcome". Not to mention that there were several people who complained and wanted me banned from the forum, just because I said that 300h is objectively not fast car, they were so much hurt by my opinion. So it isn't even just debate, they do go behind the scenes and (insert baby waaa noise) to the site administration 😅

Just shows that you don't know me at all. This is age old silly argument you make - "if you don't own Lexus or ES, then you cannot have valid opinion about them". There were people who said Lexus "200t" engine is great and I just jealous and can't know because I don't own the car with this engine. Sure enough RC200t was exactly as I expected, I actually surprised myself because I had hope that maybe I was wrong and engine can't be that bad... it was. Just stating the fact and giving example that BMW handles better (among dozen of other cars), doesn't mean that I hate Lexus as a brand. Yes... Lexus as any brand made mistakes, IS220d, no IS350/RC350... discontinuing GS/IS in favour of ES, which I consider overall inferior car because it is FWD and I consider FWD inferior when it comes to handling and handling being important for me that is dead sentence for car. So I just pointing out that not everything is perfect. It is funny how some people look at this forum like some sort of "cult" or "fan club" where everyone are fanatic and only ever says positive thing... and if anyone dares point out not so amazing and positive things, then they are branded as "heretics". Just 300h, not IS overall.

I have... I did find a lot of similar issues, but underlying issue was different. Most cases were fuel pump, but my car acts differently and my fuel pump works, I have not checked the pressure, but it works good enough to start the car, there is fuel flow, lines are no blocked. Then there were few issues related to electrical gremlins and I have checked those out as much as I can. There is still possibility that one of million sensors shorts the harness for ECU, which as result causes communication issue, but as you can imagine this is nearly impossible to diagnose with basic tools on the drive. I have tried disconnecting most sensors that are accessible individually but with no luck. The next thing is harness itself shorting or having poor contact, which again is like looking for the needle in the haystack. I have tired checking the harnesses for obvious damage and testing key contacts, but as I said the only steps left now requires oscilloscope, removing dash, so it is not simple like just checking the voltage or impendence. There was a curious case in Australia with flooded engine. Basically the story was along the lines - guy turned on cold car drove 2 metres on the drive just to move it to other side and turned it off. Somehow car didn't like that and flooded the engine with petrol, requiring to crank it for few minutes before it started. Now in my case there was one detail, which I am considering to this day. Usually, when I start the car the engine starts almost instantly and I have habit of putting it into drive right away, by the time I put the hand on the gear-stick the engine is started. What has happened to me on my old car - there were few occasions once in a while on cold start or maybe with slightly weak battery - car needed just little bit more time to start running properly and I was too quick changing the gear and stalled it. Nothing came out of it, I just put it into P again and start it as normal. And similar thing happened to me on the faithful morning when this car did not start, I pressed the button, I wasn't overly quick, but when I put the car into drive I realised engine has stalled. Maybe it would have stalled anyway and gear change had nothing to do with it. At fist I thought - just weak battery, car in rough shape maybe it needs crank just little bit longer, but this time around it was the issue I am having now. It could be just coincidence and car would have stalled anyway regardless, or maybe it flooded the engine in this instance. However, as I have said I have checked with borescope and its not flooded. I have even dropped some fuel directly onto valves and managed to start it for few seconds, so I kind of discounting the theory that engine could be flooded. Overall in summary, most of the cases I have seen on US forum were kind of obvious ones. Faulty parts like fuel pump, injector driver etc. Nothing like my issue where car was driving happily for some time and just died one day.

Yes, that is likely the case - I have seen some of 09 number costing as much as £315 a minute, so perhaps it is for the better that it is blocked. Still strange that I can't even discuss the issue with mechanic, even if that is for guestimate. Obviously, I can gamble on it, take car to them - pre-authorise only £195 and then if they fail to diagnose take the car back. If it would be flat fee of £195 I probably would have already done it, but even just this 1 hour thing will stand at ~£400 including hiring the trailer to get the car there and back. And this most likely the cost I would have to pay either way, even if they do indeed manage to diagnose it in 1 hour. Basically they said that if I choose to repair car with them, then I won't need to pay for diagnostic, but knowing that literally anything related to this issue will be way over £1000, I would most likely need to take car from them and address it myself. In conclusion - my next step is to somehow diagnose the car for less than £400.

I do think that your title was spot on thought - "Not entirely complimentary review" and indeed it was. I think the discussion is about whenever one should be expecting more complimentary review, or whenever it was unfair. Some people seems feel to be almost entitled to complimentary reviews and I don't think that is the case at all or have any merit. As well people seems to take reviews too personally, imagine going to your family member in your new car you are passionate about and them saying "meh... mediocre handling and acceleration, bit boring not exciting". One may say such family member is a bit rude and even thought they don't like the car at least they should pretend and not hurt your morale. And that is true for family member... but I would argue that is not what we should expect from reviews - they should be objective and fair, because if they all complimentary and without pointing out what some may see as an issue, then they fail in sole purpose of the review itself. Reviews are there not to complement us for our choice, but to tell potential buyers what to expect, what is good and what is not so good. As such potential buyer then could make a decision based on what is important for them. And I would not call it a "stir" - healthy debate is always good!

Are you suggesting Clarkson is paid to be negative about Lexus, or not paid to be positive? I thought his review was insightful and touches on much wider issue (or you may call it reality) that car is no longer viewed as object which makes you excited, but rather a tool to go from A to B in relative comfort. The speed does not matter, the handling does not matter... because we not allowed to do speed or handling, or sound anymore. Hence SUVs, hence cars like ES, which suites the current reality - doing their job, but not much more. I don't think there is agenda behind it... but I might be wrong. Although, I don't have any agenda and I have exactly same opinion about it.

Mee too... I have tried everything and really just moved on to work around other areas which needed attention, as I can't think of anything else I can do. So have polished headlights, straitened crease in the bumper and refitted it and started servicing brakes (which to my surprise, I can report are in excellent shape). As for non-starting issue, I am really lost with it. The last thing I tried - I have disconnected B1S1 o2 sensor as that was the only thing giving fault code just before car stopped running. I have tried different ECU. I have tried re-syncing both ECUs multiple times. I have removed spark plugs again, this time around they were wet and stinking of petrol - cleaned and inspected them... they definitely need replacing (one has crack in ceramic), but they are not cause of not starting, so I will replace them once car is running again. I have inspected cylinder bores again... they are covered in carbon and damp from petrol, but not flooded, likewise not the case for non-starting. It must be something with immobiliser ID Box and EUC communication, either electrical issue or faulty ECU/Immobiliser... but that is way above my head in terms of complexity to properly diagnose. It requires removing all dash, using oscilloscope to check for the frequency and waveform... it is basically equivalent a rocket science + programming, certainly not covered by average electrical skills I have 😄 In short I don't know what I am going to do about it and I don't know anyone who does know. I guess Lexus Dealer could diagnose it, but that the cost which would exceed value of the car. As for other independent mechanics - I doubt they even have as much knowledge as I do... or are willing to spend as much time diagnosing the issue. I have also called Lexus, but I can't get to the mechanics or anyone even little bit technically minded and obviously people who deal with bookings have very little clue as to what it would take to diagnose the issue. The only thing they can tell me is that diagnostics is £195/hour and it may take unlimited number of hours to diagnose. I am obviously not expecting them to diagnose car over the phone, but I hoped to at least speak with mechanic or service manager, so that they could estimate whenever it will take 1h to diagnose or 1 week, but that sadly isn't an option. They advised me to call 0906 661 0062 (apparently Lexus technical advise), but I don't think this is valid number, my phone refuses to even dial it.

Ok then... so what is wrong with the review? It just points out the same thing, that this car has positives and negatives... and it seems to math the profile of the driver you are. Why it is being marked as negative, just for saying same things?

Again that is about you. But maybe I would prefer something else even on the road? Is that not valid? Are there not car which are more exciting to drive even on the roads? As well you don't even need to drive fast for it to be exciting... we don't need to go far say LC500. You can so speed limit, but just press accelerator on the slip road before joining the motorway and listen to V8... is that not more exciting? Obviously the question is - does that justify the price? Well.. maybe not for you, but maybe it does for me. As besides... again cars don't exist in vacuum. I can get 2 years old LC500 with 12k miles which I consider "new car" for jut £50k and in my mind that is price well worth paying over £40k and what I get in ES. More I can get 2016 RC-F for £30k and be just excited. I just don't understand insistence that ES300h has absolutely no negatives, even in case where you don't find them important to you. And I don't hate it - I just don't enjoy it and Clarkson very well explains why. Because I am person who cares "about speed handling.... etc". Same applies to IS300h... engine is just not exciting.

Maybe they feel handling is more important in their value scales? I do... I would never prefer ES over anything comparable, for me it is just dull drive and mediocre handling... and that is important for me. That does not mean ES is bad car, it just means exactly what was said in review - "car for person who doesn't value speed, acceleration, handling as much".