Linas.P

It is good looking car, but certainly nowhere near as good looking as RC. I know that is pointless point to argue as everyone will have their own opinion and taste, it is just strange that you said it as some sort of fact.

Of coure... but why would you do it? It will cost more than LC after cost of importing it and taxes. Like for example RC350 is available to import (I would like to have it), but all considered it is cheaper to buy UK spec RC-F.

RC-F or F-Sport ? 😁 Either way - good luck with your purchase!

My vehicle is extreme example of bad turbo engine - agree, not all of them are as bad, but I had Passat CC with similar issue (2L Turbo engine from GTI). It is combination of very short close ratio gears and very weak engine with very short power band. And indeed I am not saying all turbo engines are bad because of my engine is bad. What I am saying acceleration and accelerator is more progressive on NA engines, the more you push it and the higher you push it, the more power you get. It may not be as fast in any gear, but it is drivable in any gear and it is clear for the driver what they need to do... pretty simple frankly - as long as you in right gear just push-it all the way and change at the top of rev range. In turbo engines you have peak power at certain point in rev range and you need to keep the car in that particular point, below it no power, above it no point to go further. Now on my car that is 4000RPM and it sucks... car just feels lazy because it does not want to rev past 4000.. I mean you can, but there is no progress after that. Sure if it would be variable geometry turbo, it may be better - it really just kind of lacks top-end. And yes my comment was mostly related to my car, not all turbo cars, but yes it is on/off - all or nothing. well... and that difference is what I don't like.

@4969_LXS - I am not the guy to ask... I hate estate cars, but I know some people are going crazy about them. To be fair I don't even like saloons - I am coupe person, as well 2 door coupes, not those silly 4 door coupes. I still think that IS mk3.5 is great looking car for what it is, if somebody asks me to list Lexus IS from prettiest to ugliest I would say this is it - mk3.5 is the best looking, then mk2, followed by mk3 and mk1... and mk1 estate. So no... no estate for me please, but maybe IS500C our coupe version of it (assuming no RC mk2 will be made). BUT what an amazing car would be RC500. I would be like "shut-up and take my money!"... but knowing Lexus we won't see it on our shores, not even nearby!

That is what I am saying... why have paddles then. It is illusion of choice! I can changed gears fine when it is 6 of them, anything more and there is no point any longer. Ratios are close, but they are fine Rear seats are indeed amazing, my RC is far more practical compared to older IS250 just because of folding seats.

@Flytvr - strange, you see I have turbo car now and I absolutely hate it, is worst of both world. And I was going between NA and turbo cars and I hated all turbo cars. To be fair new MB E300 does not feel bad, but it just waffles around anyway, but that is different car for different people. The "turbo lag" is indeed 80's thing, it is still there but it is very small... my problem is not turbo-lag, but "on/off accelerator". With NA engine you can have exactly the right amount of engine input, on turbo car is either nothing or balls the the wall (like you saying). And it is not your foot on accelerator which defines the acceleration, but rather RPM and the gear selection... obviously you don't select gears either when you have 8 of them and all have basically the same ratio. On my car is pretty much no difference if you accelerate from 2nd, 3rd or 4th... they kind of the same. Must be different values and styles, but I feel much more relaxed driving NA car where I can drive it exactly as fast as I want to, if I want to keep it at 3000RPM for moderate acceleration, I can do that, if I want little bit more, then 4000, 5000... from 5000 VVTi kicks in and you can rev it all the way and hear glorious sound. You can just creep in at 2000 rpm "eco mode"... that is equally fine. On turbo engine if you want to accelerate at all, turbo has to spool-up and your petrol goes down the drain very quickly. You get hit with the pan over head between 2500 and 4000 rpm and you change gear. Reminds Clarkson here about truck drivers "change gear, change gear, mur*** the p****, change gear". Not sure why would anyone want that... except of racing on the track.

I liked 10-speed box, I have no complains about it, smooth and relatively responsive, but as I said it is better left to do it's thing. Is that really a problem in LC (big GT car) - no I think it is fine. But is it a problem in sporty sedan or coupe... it may be. Just for example - if you cruising @10th gear and you need to downshift to 4th it is little bit pointless to do it with paddles. And ratios are so short and so close, tat again trying to change them yourself would be confusing. For LC the saving grace is the engine - it has long power band from ~2000RPM all the way to what... like 7500... and you can really rev it out (I guess not that much different from IS-F). Give same 10-speed box to turbo car which only has power between 1500-4000RPM and you will never stop shifting.

Probably you are right, but I quite enjoy typing... you know winning argument on the internet is key! 😁

Not stopping it seems - they are quite desperate... I generally don't mind that, but read it and think for yourself if it makes sense. First of all they offer extended test drive and say "it can take as long as it needs to", but then they say it is currently suspended 😄

Sorry, not speed, I meant acceleration. 155 or 168 is pretty much irrelevant unless you living in Germany. Besides removing speed limiter is fairly simple. And comparison was made against Audi S5 or BMW 340i, both around 380hp and both does the same 0-60. I guess you right - their turbo engines means more low down torque and l thus better acceleration. In other hand, would Audi and BMW have dual-clutch boxes? As I said, it is kind of moot point... if they can get the car to the level of RC-F Track Edition 3.9s 0-60 I don't see the problem with that. However, I don't agree that I would want to see 10-speed box in the car... 8 are already far too many to make sense out of it. 10 would be just literally leaving car to do it's thing, no point in trying to change them with paddles. I tried it in LC and car feels great on auto, but manual changing makes no sense.

Exactly, besides 4WD is not good even for track! If one just wants a nice driving car I cannot see any better engine than NA 4-5L V8 or 3L V6, could be 3L L6 as well. I guess ideally manual, but reality is quite sad with manual on our crooked roads and traffic. If there is any area where Lexus could do better job is keeping the weight down and delivering power more efficiently... I do not expect 800kg Lotus like car, but something like 1300kg should be achievable even whilst keeping sufficient sound isolation and comfort. As well it seems something is wrong with Lexus drivetrain, because competitors can do same speed with 100 less HP. Perhaps trusty 8 speed needs updating, I know horrors of dual-clutch, but maybe there is way to make auto more efficient... although who am I kidding from when ~4s to 60 is not enough? RC-F track edition could do 3.9s by just having launch control. I think that is good enough for luxury car and not outright track weapon.

I think your car is fine, but sadly the pollution would be in line with consumption.

That is all what is wrong if modern cars, making engines smaller and turbocharging. They look good on the paper, sucks to drive thought- no relation between your foot and what engine is doing and fuel economy in reality is tragic. "Up the game" with what car? IS-F? maybe LC-F? Because RC-F and GS-F are going... As I said it makes no sense what they doing. So they were happy to take punches from germans all along when they had full line-up of performance cars and they didn't think of upping the game then and now they going to up the game with one semi-refreshed EOL model and flagship which will be like $150k if they make F version of it. I am not trying to shoot the messenger, just saying this speculation makes no sense.

That is good value, I would definitely rather pay that than do it myself, but sadly Stockport is far away from me...

My understanding is that you either run remote and power, or you tap into other speaker wires if you have amp high-gain input. Sadly, you would be better advised by @Inazone, as my experience is just general doing that to other cars. I have not fitted speakers in IS300h in particular, although I know where components of the system are placed to form a little bit of opinion. As for components into rear door, I don't think it would work - there are no place to fit them and I don't believe you would want making new holes in the door. You can probably replace existing woofer in rear door with coaxial speaker, but I doubt there would be benefit as I said the head unit would be limited to something like 40-45W anyway. The benefit of fitting speakers to rear deck is that they look OEM as there mean to be speakers by design and there are grills as you know.

Yes that is fair point, as well IS250 is just so much nicer to drive, but you won't see more than 28-30MPG in the city thought. On motorway it is about the same. I would say that ~2010-2015 it was peak of least realistic consumption and then WLTP got introduced, so I think 300h was just on that wave of unrealistic cars. If that would make you feel better my RC200t does 22MPG... well that is a surprise even fore me, I was not expecting it to be fuel efficient, but I didn't know it was THAT inefficient.

I learned to drive in manual too... I am pretty sure that like 90% of licenses are on manual and only few on "auto only". At some point I was really anti-auto to the level that I was saying they are for lazy people (well I was 16 then - so what do you expect). However, when opinion meets practice it just so happens I realised it is not cool to inch in the traffic for hours at times and grind clutch. I would still have manual car, but that should be more like sports car driven on weekends on a nice scenic road or track. Besides Lexus IS250 is not even a "good" manual in my opinion, as I said - it doesn't really suit the car, the ratios are weird (although I was told Sport version had shorter ratios) and then you have all the problems linked to it. Probably if they made IS250C manual, I can imagine having that as a weekend car, but IS250 is much better as auto. My advice would be - at least try both. In the end of the day is your decision what you get, it is not me who will have to live with it and not my money, but I find hard to justify paying more to have manual car, especially when living in London.

just more efficient, do it in the forest leave it in the forest. I have to keep up the standards, are we now going to say it is ok to remove DPF? What is next pictures and detailed instructions (not like it is difficult to weld pipe but still).

I would explain, but do you really care to know?

It is kind of on par. RWD M340i is 4.4s, S5 is 4.3s... So it isn't like it's on another planet, yes right - technically 3l turbo are faster cars and with little chip tuning you can get another 0.5s off. With NA you get what you get. Probably this is where the engine shows it's age - how does BMW and Audi get's these times with 380HP, when Lexus needs all 470 to get there... In other hand we have RC-F Track edition, still same engine, same gearbox and it just had launch control, suddenly it is 3.9s Not sure... I have mixed feeling about this car, mostly I do not understand why it exists. Depending on the price I still think it would be nice car and I would have comparable NA engine any day over turbo. I would have engine from IS250 now rather than this trashy 2.0t as it is completely undrivable. Ka - yes still salty, but I may get rid of it soon, will see how it goes. As well as you pointing out... why Lexus does not offer AWDs here? I used to own IS250 AWD... I would not say I liked it, but I just don't understand why they introduce artificial limits on themselves? Like who does that and what are they trying to achieve?

Well.. that is kind of what I said - if it is priced between IS350 and IS-F (or RC-F) then it works out ~$52-55k. Exactly where S5 (4-door) and M340i sits, but with it's V8 and reliability it spanks both.

good luck on your mission ruining the environment, just be careful not to be caught in the forest with your pans down 👍

And when Lexus develops the engines it is quite often ****.. take for example disgrace I have fitted to my RC... they spent years developing it and what is the result. Fuel consumption almost like RC-F, the power is more like IS250... what was wrong to simply discount RC350 a little bit - more fuel efficient and much faster car. I understand you cannot price 5l V8 with 470hp, same as 4L V8 TT with 650hp, that is true. But I don't see issue buying NA cars - as long as price is right. Finally, this is bizarre part I would agree with you if GS-F and RC-F would still be current cars or if Lexus would plan releasing next generations, but RC-F is basically EOL. Yes they may still make final orders in 2021, maybe 2022. But the model is ending, there won't be RC mk2. So you will either have to get this... or LC. Be careful Lexus may be listening and may take you on your suggestion and sell exactly 1 car. Nowadays is hard to predict them as they line-up totally makes no sense. I would not want say... "what next Lexus- manual"?! And then see Lexus bringing back diesel with manual only option!

As far as I am concerned, there were no issues all the way to 188k... when we removed the sump at 193k the AT fluid was basically brown and disgusting, but hey - chocolate is brown as well! Replaced the the fluid and car drives like new, no error codes either. Checked the magnets on the sump and they barely had metal dust... as far as I am concerned now the car is good to go until 300k. Just don't forget to leave the car there as well!