Linas.P

You mean filter? As I said... nobody does this as regular maintenance, unless they can do it themselves or there is a reason. I would take advise from your mechanic and save yourself hard earned money. As well 6L of fluid is incorrect - kind of random amount... if he takes pan off, then it will be around ~3.5L of fluid. There is nothing else you can do. If he somehow flushes all oil, then it is 7.2L. I guess ordering 4L is fine considering some will be wasted when refilling as it need to start running from overflow plug.

As above, I would not worry about reliability of IS300h - at just 42k miles and FLSH it certainly have long life in front of it. The deal itself is ok, but not exceptions, as well considering it is advance model. 5 years old car is now eligible for essential service, but you can get service plan as well (making it ~25% cheaper). Full service 60k - 2 years service plan (minor+major) costs ~£675-695... at least that is what I generally get offered when they say "I can make a deal on service if you take service plan). Essential Care Major - 2 years service plan (minor+major) costs £560 To be honest comparing them, full service doesn't offer much over Essential care, key battery replacement, pollen filter replacement, not sure if differential oil is even applicable for IS300h. As for warranty - I would have said just save yourself £795, however in October my driver seat electric motors were replaced under warranty (RC200t has basically the same seat + hinge to let passengers in) and it was £4200 claim for parts + labour. In the end of the day Lexus rarely fails, but when they do it is expensive to repair - after all it is car with ~£40k list price. Depends on how you feel about the car, you being only owner I guess you can have a feel on the condition. My car was kind of worn for 3 years old car (64k miles), yours may be in much better shape and I would make decision on warranty based that.

Sure... but that is perhaps the reason why we have such an acute car theft problem and such a low rate of recoveries (unless owners tracks the car by themselves). In many countries that would be considered reasonable force to recover stolen goods and when you go out looking for answers, you yourself would be questioned why didn't you think of reporting suspicious activity, when in neighbouring unit guys are splitting apart brand new and perfectly fine cars every other day. I think UK police has slightly different sense of "justice" i.e. in some of the mythical countries I mentioned police cares more about stopping or preventing crime then whenever it is strictly legal (I agree - this could be slight issue), the decision is usually made on the available possibilities e.g. what is bigger crime - braking 5 £20 padlocks and trespassing or allowing £80k car to be destroyed and letting thief away. I think it is clear to me what is more important in this situation... and again it would be the landlord would would be ultimately responsible. So even if there would be genuinely innocent person garage lock broken, police would just recover the damages from the landlord as he should know better what is happening on his premises.

Wow... that as a massive obstacle... surely there is nothing on this planet that could move the gate. Now I give you that - UK police is the most risk averse force on the planet. Sure legally they are actually right and the is respectable, however what their actions done was just protecting people who harbour the criminals. Do you think I was born yesterday - are you trying to tell me the guy renting the unit didn't know what was going on there? Obviously, he is in the same game. I know multiple countries where they would have ripped the gate out, ripped all the garages out and then charged the landlord the fee for the work of removing all the locks and gates - as a lesson to check more carefully next time to whom he rents the units. This illustrates my example how the laws are flawed in UK, because in other countries the landlord would be ultimately responsible that the stolen car was found in his garage. He would not b charged with stealing the car, but he would have been charged with possession of stolen goods and received exactly the same sentence... or may have agreed plea deal and stitched his associates - both works for me...

You rarely see country where company tracks stolen car to exact location within 10 meters, 3 police vans comes to the place with dozen of officers, then summons police helicopter and then simply drives-off. Besides in most EU countries citizens are allowed to own guns and use them for self-defence, in we are absolutely reliant on UK to act... and they simply don't. The reason maybe that they don't have resources, but in the end of the day they just providing the service. If my network provider stop providing internet for me, because they "run of our feet" I would simply switch provider, because last one was "dysfunctional"... with police I sadly can't do that, but that does not make them any better. The only time they seems to function is when they need to get £100 from you for few miles over the limit or some minor infraction, because you are working person and paying taxes, so they know where you are and they can simply collect the money. But as soon as something needs to be investigated you just get e-mail 2 days later saying "case closed as evidence is insufficient to continue the investigation". I do agree that visible locks etc. could help drive away thief sometimes, but that does not overall reduce the crime - they simply going to steal the car down the road, so that is no the solution.

How often the sentence of more than suspended 12 months is given? Real prison sentences for car theft is absolute exceptions. When you say "everyone's concern"... yes I am concerned that police in UK is dysfunctional, but you put it in a way as if that is "okey for them not to investigate crimes because they simply don't have resources and are exhausted". What I suppose to do about that? Just accept that when my stuff is stolen that police won't look at it (which is literally the case majority of the time)? What is the solution you suggesting?

Police being "run of their feet" is not really our concern, we don't pay less tax for it, we no longer have rights to protect our property either. It is fact, but just isn't an excuse. We have to pay extraordinal insurance prices, taxes or when get a fine for few miles over the limit - nobody cares how "run of our feet" we are... we have to pay-up immanently full price or we will be prosecuted with full force like "real criminals". As I mentioned already, it is not only issue of police either - law is set-up in such way that is almost impossible to prosecute thief. For example in other countries possession of stolen goods = theft, meaning that it does not matter that thief with the tools is gone and the person in the car does not have anything with him to prove he actually have stolen the car... simply driving stolen car is same as stealing it, or working in garage dismantling stolen car is same as stealing it... suddenly it becomes much harder to evade, because at any step dealing with stolen car one can be prosecuted for theft and simply being in it or in the same room with it counts same as theft. In UK it is almost impossible to prove this link, so even if there would be police resources not much would change.

Yes... I assume for insurance is better to auction out the parted out car, than nothing at all. However, the discount offered is not worth the effort for the owner. I guess probably depends on the car, but for me the difference was something like £15 from £1400 insurance whenever tracker is fitted or not.

I am sure that 95% tracked cars are recovered, problem is the state they recovered in, at which point I am not convinced you actually want your car to be recovered. Obviously, if it is damaged or disassembled then it can be still written-off. But what is the gain there - if it is stolen and not recovered you will get insurance pay-out and if it is recovered and written-off, equally you will get insurance pay out. In either case that will be accident/claim on your insurance and your insurance will go up. So what is the the benefit to you? I guess there is wider benefit to the society as some proceed of the crime are stopped, but I don't see much benefit for individual who is paying for tracking. If it is risk for persons life.. maybe. If it is just stolen car then no difference. See this case - crime in action, gang came and picked-up the car in front of the cameras. Police took 6 hours to react and when gang moved the car and police arrived... gang just standing there... police didn't even attempt to investigate. The second car gang was driving was as well stolen! Police it total joke when it comes to car crime. Congrats on the 100th post 😄 It is just my opinion, but you can judge for yourself. The issue is fuelled by car crime being effectively decriminalised nowadays, this is partially fault of laws, partially fault of CPS/Courts and partially fault of Police. In short - total failure of all 3 branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial. The laws are joke, making it very difficult to prosecute car thief, the sentencing and interpretation of the laws are joke, making criminals to go away with very lenient sentences or avoid more serious charges, and police is joke, because they don't even investigate the crimes right in front of their nose. All issues contributes to each other - there is no point creating better laws because they are not enforced and there are no precedent to follow, there is no point to judge people when there is very little deterrent or remedy within the law and there is no point of investigating the crimes, because it is time consuming and end result is lenient sentencing or criminals walking away. Consider this - most prosecutions fail because of lack of evidence, because being in stolen car is not considered a crime in itself, working on stolen car only or holding it in your premises carries very small penalties of "possession of stolen goods" etc. The way law is structured is that proving one step at the times does no add value, to prove car theft police has to prove entire chain from beginning to the top - prove that car was stolen, stripped and parts sold... only then it is theft.. which is still very lenient... most sentences are 6-12month suspended sentences, few hundred £ fines and few hours of community work. Criminal completely obliterate such laws by separating the theft itself, from handling and from selling of the goods... meaning at no point they can be charged for theft. Driving in the car full of equipment designed for steeling the cars is not a crime in itself, stealing the car takes 5 min - so catching the m red handed is nearly impossible, the thief with equipment never drives the car, so there is no link, the thief driving the car has no equipment to it cannot be proven that he stolen it (this is absurdity of the law), the people stripping the car don't drive it so again they cannot be charged with anything (they just claim it is customer car) and tracing the person selling the parts is impossible as proof of purchase of used car parts is not required. Most of the times they get 1-3month suspended sentences. How is that deterrent?! The only thing I agree with - having like wheel lock or bollard is good detraction for thief as they will look for easier target. This is the best you can do... However, if they determined it won't stop them. I remember somebody here telling the story of their friend who had E63AMG or RS6 and dozen of thief came at night threatened to set house on fire unless he gives keys to bollard and car... obviously he complied, what else could he do? In UK we are not allowed to have guns for self defence and there is no way fighting dozen thief with bats and molotov cocktails just using your bare hands... even if you Chuck Norris... So yeah... in summary sad story and it won't get better at any time soon.

But the questions is... whenever that is economical preventative maintenance or is it better just to replace the bin when it comes to it ?😁

Actually, It may be worse - because police in UK could not care less for car crime. So not only you going to pay for tracker, but as well instead of getting full pay out you will get your car in parts and your insurance go up either way. Tracker would be good thing if police would actually act on them, but they don't, just painful to watch:

IS-F has the same set-up as standard IS, but I would advise contacting the seller and asking. I know that usually it is not an issue for cars without sat-nav at all, but IS-F all had not only sat-navs, but as well all had ML. I am sure there is model which works with ML, but you would need to ask sellers to confirm which one it is.

It probably has gone, I would be surprised if is not. I would not expect tyres to be new, but I would not expect them to require immediate replacement either. If latter, then it would be reasonable to point that out. Clearly owner does not thin that replacement is needed, else I would expect that to be listed. Especially if he already listed broken screen, then I would assume he would list all other issues as well. When I say android replacement I mean completely new head unit and throw obsolete Lexus tech in to the bin. Something like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/10-1Inch-Indash-Android-Navigation-Bluetooth/dp/B07SJD48XF I agree, that having anything broken on the car is not ideal when selling as that automatically attracts negative attention and drives down the interest. Hence I assume owner is in the rush to sell, so that he can be bothered fixing the screen and probably putting the price-up to £14.5k Actually, the other theory is that he as mentioned wants to move to bigger car, so possibly he rock-bottom PX value on IS-F and even selling it for £12k is better than PX'ing it for £8k. He probably has some car he wants to pick-up and don't want deal to go away, hence quick sale. Obviously, complete speculation.

Yes you would be right, if I would have been cruising at "highway speeds", but I was cruising specifically at 120-135MPH (indicated) for hours, like literally from getting full tank in one station, driving until fuel light comes-up, checking where next station is, refill and repeat. This specifically is one of the conditions (80%+ of max speed) which is defined by Toyota as severe condition. Then... when back in UK my commute would be gridlocked road in London, so straight away another condition under based on Toyota definition is considered severe for shorter service-life. And on top of that I would be using engine braking and downshift, instead of using brakes like normal person... Besides - it seems my suggested 100k miles interval is bang on Toyota service intervals is Wikipedia article is to be believed?! 😁

And... I just speculate that Lexus planned to make RC convertible as well, so they took mid-section to support this option in case they decide to go that way and without the need for new chassis development. Obviously, they never made RC convertible, but there was certainly a prototype. Second, speculation - possibly the LC was what killed RC Convertible... as that market is already niche and both cars would basically compete each other. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a5976/2015-lexus-rc-convertible-first-look/ https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1029411_lexus-cancels-rc-convertible-focuses-on-new-crossover-based-on-next-gen-ls-platform-report

I do actually know how they work in principle and for me is all good, except of expensive post code and 3 accident which were not my fault. Sadly, in UK (and I say that because it is not the case in most of other countries) it does not matter who's fault it was the insurance will go up for both parties regardless. Even if you do not make claim.

My RC first year insurance was £1400 and that is just 2L turbo vacuum cleaner. IS250 was £680 and I considered that to be cheap. Just the case of living in London I guess. I kind of hated myself for no getting RC-F, but when I think about it I probably would not be able to insure it at all.

I absolutely have no doubt about it, further I never said you are wrong about technical matter. As you know my work is more about counting money, and from my perspective changing fluid is not only the matter of what is absolutely the best for the gearbox, but as well on the possible probabilities what is most financially sensible options. I just don't see 50k fluid change interval as viable considering depreciations and all other financial points. So what do I do... I take risk based approach... I know that never changing the oil will eventually grenade the gearbox and I know that often changing the oil is waste of money, so I choose somewhere in between - that is to change the oil, but only when there are some indication of that being needed (which for experienced driver are quite obvious). That is my approach and I think I made it clear - it is for the reader to decide what works for them. And my car was driven exceptionally hard, often cruising for hours at the tops speed, I was often engine braking as well (which wears gearbox more), I always... and I mean always drove it hard, used braking to boost for launch etc. None of which is generally considered good for gearbox. If anything the way I drove my car was constant stress-testing for gearbox. Should you take my example and use that as benchmark... no definitely not, but again if there gearboxes would be known to fail without fluid change I am sure we would know more examples of them failing. To my knowledge there are none. What I am saying - so far the precedent is that they don't fail, when we have dozen people coming here or somewhere else (say clublexus.com) and complaining about failed gearboxes that precedent may change. However, considering it has been nearly 16 years and many cars are now past 200k and some even past 300k I somehow don't see anything new coming-up soon... and even if it does then it hardly matters as by the time is 16 years old and 300k miles it is worthless anyway.

I think you already made your self clear - I don't like you either, but I am happy to co-exist just in case you come with some facts or valuable opinion from time to time (which you do... from time to time). What I found crass is everyone sugar-coating somebodies decision to buy a new car without any objective reason and without any opinion - "ohhh somebody got a new car, let's go and congratulate them no matter what, just for sake of it!" So I rather have my honest opinion, rather than go around congratulating people all over the place with fake smile. Again... I have not criticised the choice. New owner got it, likes it, the looks is not an issue, or the owner may actually love the looks and that is fine. Seems like you don't understand what criticism actually means. That I don't like the looks that is my opinion (don't care what you think), that car equipment is good, but not expectational is just a fact. I think here I will end, because clearly I will not please you (not that I would even try anyway). @Vince Donald - if my opinion sounded offensive, I just wanted to say I didn't mean to offend. I know many people absolutely loves how Kia Stinger looks, but I just never understood that. But it does not matter what I think, what matter is that you like the car and I hope you will enjoy it. Regarding my comments about equipment - all Kia cars are generally very well equipped and Stinger is no exception, but comparison with much older IS300h is just not possible. New cars will always have more toys... it is just general trend. What would be interesting to know is whenever you would have considered say new IS350 if that would be an option in UK, but maybe this is topic for another time as it seems I have inadvertently turned this thread toxic.

I looked into my filter after 193k and it was completely clean. Like literally there was nothing in it. Yes light brown paper was the dark brown colour like fluid, but that is it. I am 90% positive that brand new filter and brand new fluid which was put in the car probably 400 miles ago would look exactly the same now as the old ones... just because ~3.5L added by now would have mixed with ~3L remaining into 7L or "visually" dirty fluid. @nicnac - you call mechanics "grease monkeys", but you feel that engineers are some sort of royalty. There are 2 parts of puzzle here - practice and theory. I appreciate the information from engineers in theory and I appreciate the information from mechanics in practice. So far the statistics proves mechanics opinion to be closer to the truth. I am not saying that you are wrong and I am not saying that fluid should never be changed, but likewise I think you blowing too big of a bubble out of nothing.

Well, you specifically mentioned me, so I felt like I need to respond to it... there is not reaction to it or offence, I was just surprised that you felt a need to rant about it. Me keeping thing to myself - sorry, that is not going to happen, that is the way I am. If I love it will tell that I love it, if I hate it then I tell that I hate it. If somebody gets offended - that is their problem. @dutchie01 and your point is? Yes sometimes I have discussion for a sake of it and I tend to discuss off-topic. So?

Lexus definitely gets ~3.5L out of when pan is removed. And that is true - the whole "gravy in the bag thing" is little bit of joke. That fluid would look the same after 2 years and 20k miles. Yes in theory ATF does not lose viscosity and it being sealed unit dirt or other contamination ingress is significantly reduced. Meaning any contamination would be internal. For small stuff there are magnets and filter, for big stuff.... well for big stuff you get new gearbox. Now I am not advocating for never changing the fluid, but as mentioned many times I see no justification, economical, wear prevention etc. for doing it regularly say at 50k intervals or without any particular reason.

You certainly have not offended me... ever, as I generally do not take offence from random people on the internet. It is just kind of funny that you started your "first post in months" by having a rant of how offensive an poor mannered I am, just because I don't understand design language of Kia Stinger and do not outright fall dead from how gorgeous it is.

I would happily spend £1k... with IS-F we not talking £1k... so let's not make comparisons. As well I am concerned where that money is going... if it is going into petrol tank, into spare parts, into mods, into maintenance - fine. If it is literally wasted on fraud called "car insurance" or total rip-off called VED which doesn't go anywhere near maintaining and improving the roads, then I am not fine with it.

Me not liking it is not criticism, saying it is ugly, would be criticism... I guess you can take "real mess" as synonym to ugly, but that is you making assumption. I don't think Kia Stinger is ugly I just don't understand it's design, I don't understand what they tried to achieve... I guess they tried to create a characteristic and recognisable brand design, but I just don't see it. There are just bunch of shapes, gills, grills, lines, lights, details... seemingly in random places. None of them are ugly, but overall they do not make consistent and cohesive design and I consider it messy. If they tried to be different then I guess they achieved it, but whenever that is good thing or not, that is another question... I guess the question the owners answers with their wallet. If you want to get upset about it... then go ahead, but that is not about my manners, or me offending you, but just because you like to take offence out of anything and this was good excuse to do so.