Linas.P

I agree with that - we should all work from home where possible and limit the journeys to those strictly necessary. Strictly necessary obviously includes the blast on welsh roads, because that is important for mental health 😁 However, what you should not put into the same bucket is one person who is driving technically sound car with all emissions equipment in place and other one who thinks to be "smart", removes that equipment and unnecessarily pollutes more. These are not the same. As I have mentioned - car overall is not a big issue, no matter how government would like to demonise us motorists (they doing this just because it is convenient to extract money from us this way and justify it to the public). But car could become an issue when some ****-hand removes filters and parts which meant to act as a barrier and prevent excessive pollution. Even if we ignore moral aspect of this, then we should consider that actions of certain motorists impacts us all. Because Shelby tested his Cobra on motorway @180MPH in 1960s now we all have to forever drive at retarded 70MPH, because some moron killed bunch of people when driving drunk out of his mind now we all need to be afraid of having single pint, despite this having little effect on ones driving. Point is - when somebody goes beyond and above what is reasonable, there are consequences and those consequences impacts us all. Besides RX450h is certainly very environmentally friendly if you compare it like for like with other SUVs, think of what is "standard" SUV... that would be ~3L diesel right? So RX450h in it's peers group is "environmentally friendly" option. It is not question of opinion. And despite being much larger and heavier car it would still be much more environmentally friendly then some IS220 with cut-off DPF and blanked out EGR, it will be more environmentally friendly than your CRV without factory fitted DPF (not your fault, but still fact). Other thing you significantly undermine is how bad diesels actually are on average. Even most powerful car Lexus makes e.g. LC with it's 5L v8 produces less pollution than IS220d (more Co2, but less total pollution of all types - Nox, particles, soot etc). Now I said that before and I will say it again - if you certainly just have 300 miles a day to drive all on motorway, then diesel in this exceptional case is better for environment. But we don't user diesel car like that - are we? As I said, nobody needs to go crazy overboard, start eating grass, wear lycra to dinners and move to the caves in the forest - but we can be reasonable people and stay on top of maintenance of our cars to at least minimise the impact and certainly not to deliberately do more of it just because we don't like to be dealing with DPF.

Now when we have WLTP - absolutely, I think this is legacy issue. Although, Lexus scores no points here by just going with crowd of other manufacturers and using the methodology which they knew wasn't correct or reflective of realistic consumption. I personally had no issues with previous figures as I took them merely as comparative figure, meaning that car with 60MPG is 20% more efficient than car with 48MPG, even is neither achieve the figures. If that explained to buyer at the point of purchase, probably it is fine, but as well it is known that marketing could have abused it.

Battery will be fine, same battery handles 10/14 - speakers systems just fine. In 6-speakers system as noted amp is integrated in head unit itself. Not sure if there is audio-out from head-unit, but if signal can be picked-up from speaker lines that obviously is easier.

Car itself, not considering gearbox, is bulletproof if maintained. AT gearbox is bulletproof. MT gearbox not so much... you can say clutch and various associated bits and pieces are just normal wear and tear.. sure. But this "normal" wear and tear does not exists on AT. So MT car is reliable, but it may cost you £1000 extra just for wear and tear parts, where on AT you will only need to replace oil, pads and filters. Apart of that all other issues will be same of AT/MT e.g. sticking calliper applies for both cars, excessive front discs wear, carbon build-up in engine etc. and apart of these minor issues cars have very little weak points. That will be on you to decide if it is worth it extra cost and why...

In general solid cars, but when compared between AT and MT, then MT has quite a few known "issues" (they are not issues per say, but excessive maintenance) - clutch work is particularly costly and complex ~£1000 if you do it properly with all parts, DLF issues... generally requires additional maintenance. AT needs none of that, there is argument that AT fluid needs to be changed, but likewise MT oil needs changing and needs doing it more often. If you ask me MT rations are rather weird and overall MT does not suit IS250 as a car it is (not sporty, but more luxurious). And AT is more fuel efficient of course, just not by much. My fuel consumption was 28MPG average over 70k miles, so on MT will be at best 1-2MPG lower, but may be much worse depending on your proficiency with gear changes. One thing for sure - MT will never have better MPG all else being equal. Then MT is £525 road tax, whereas AT is £325, insurance is more expensive on MT as well. Not sure how lucky you will be with your insurance, but I paid £2600 on my first year of ownership of AT car in London and I was 24 old and had license for 8 years. So what we established so far - MT is less reliable/requires more maintenance and maintenance is more expensive, road tax and insurance is more expensive. Whenever it drives better or worse that is obviously personal preference, but being in London you will soon get annoying shifting and your clutch won't thank you either in start/stop traffic. Is there any particular reason why you particularly want MT and not AT? General advise would be to go with AT for all above reasons... unless you planning to build like drift car from IS250 🙂

Just don't do it before reaching out to seller, if you still planning to do it 🙂 Funny story with my name as well. I checked if there is private plate L1NAS and indeed there is - fitted on Black Lexus SE-L in London (exactly like mine).

...but it does not say much about me, if you interested into people and why they are who they are, then certainly their occupation is just one little piece of the puzzle. ...but maybe it can explain why some perceive me as condescending 😁 Finally, not to look I am completely off-topic I wanted to note dates on the sticker are day and month. There is no way to check year from this sticker, but VIN should be repeated on engine. In short if you have original engine the engine manufacturing date will be same as the car's manufacturing date. If you have engine replaced, then it will have VIN of car it was taken from and VIN can be decoded as normal to figure out when engine was manufactured. If we believe what internet tells us then Toyota is very efficient with "just in time" process and engine is made days before it is fitted to car, maybe month at most, so indexing them both on single code just makes sense.

You can always drop me a message and we can discuss that... besides, just a clue - on one of your threads you already guessed it and you were right...

For one, I would be surprised that 2008 diesel car does not have DPF, but secondly that would be Honda's and governments issue, that first one made such car and second one allowed it to be made/sold. Many old diesel cars didn't have DPFs (but to my knowledge by early 2000's all had it), sure they are not very clean, but nobody deliberately made them that way. Simple matter is - over time we realised issues with DERV and fitted solution which limits the damage. This is normal... I mean people used lead paint in the past and burned coal - does it means they should all burn in hell? No! I reckon in 18th century it was okey to keep slaves, but we don't do it anymore... right? But when you buy this never car with DPF, then you should keep it that way an maintain it, because it is there for a reason. Do you see the basic difference between old car not being fitted with DPF and somebody being "smart" and going out of their way to remove it? Clearly not a same thing... Finally, if you say 2008 CRV blows plumes of black smoke from the back... I would not feel very bad about it, I probably would try to fix it, but if not then then I would still be concerned, likely I would get rid of it and not only "rid of it", but I would make sure it is crushed, never to be used again.

The standard system layout is Y pipe under the axle (you probably can call it X, but I consider X-pipe to be something else), meaning both exhaust pipes merges just before rear axle into resonator and then splits again into two silencers at the back. However, the resonator and entire system is offset to the right to go around rear diff, making left pipe slightly longer for the rear section. This is just my assumption, but longer pipe = more resistance = less flow. This means majority of the gases goes via right side, thus you see more condensate coming out from right side. If you rev it up, then maybe rear silencers becomes the bottle neck equalising the gasses to both pipes and you may see condensate blowing from both pipes.

Yes I proven your point, by agreeing with it... any surprise there?! And what is my car - ****ty 2.0l turbo petrol?! wow - what a massive polluter! Besides, my car doesn't blow tons of black soot from the tail pipe, nor I have removed mandatory equipment which meant to reduce the pollution. And here is the thing - I am not saint, never pretended to be one and I appreciate that being alive means creating waste and pollution. Just a way of life of human being... and that is okey. What is not okey is to unnecessarily pollute more than necessary... examples of that I already provided, but I can go into more detail e.g. having car means buying tyres and tyre wear is pollution, there is no way of avoiding it right? However, it is possible to minimise the waste: It would be logical to drive the tyres all the way to legal limit to maximise the useful life from them, keep them at optimal pressure, probably buy premium tyre which has loads of mileage in it (to minimise the frequency of replacement) and then dispose of the tyres properly (as much as possible). It is still waste, but you did all what was possible for you to reduce and minimise it. -Or- You can get cheapest set of dirtiest tyres which barely last 6000 miles, never check the pressure, drive them underinflated and then get another set and throw old ones into the forest to save £2 "recycling" charge. Removing DPF is the equivalent to second option. I guess we don't need to discuss which of above two behaviours should be encouraged and which needs to be discouraged? We can even go simpler - you were thirsty and only option was to buy bottled water. Water bottle is inevitable by-product, the waste, but you have a choice to put it into recycling bin, even keep it and refill from tap and take it with you next time... or you can throw it to the bushes.... I mean it doesn't get simpler than that to understand. Waste and pollution is inevitable, but where possible we should, could and must avoid it or reduce it. Now as for driving the cars, that is interesting topic - you see transportation worldwide only contributes ~10% of pollution (that is everything included - ships, planes, trains, public transport). From total 10% private vehicles and vans are ~2.4% and petrol cars are 0.3%, whereas diesel cars are 2.1%, but that is assuming they have all their equipment in place. These are probably 2016 stats, but they haven't changed significantly. So again - I don't cry about not driving the cleanest eco ****-box on wheels, nor I cry about people using diesel cars, but when people decide they are above all else and can pollute and poison everyone around them... then it is not okey and that pisses me off.

Thanks for advice, but my post meant to be... I would say maybe "challenging, instructive, dictating"... you can call it "condescending", even "hateful" if you like... and it is hateful, because I hate people who thinks that other people health is not their problem and saving few £ justifies spreading cancerogenic soot and letting other to breath it. What I said is still very kind (overly kind), because I would like for people to be jailed for this at very least. I can't describe what I would like to happen "at very most" because that probably would get me banned from this forum 😄 As I already said, removing DPF or even contemplating it is inexcusable - no difference from throwing tyres into the bushes or spilling oil into the river. It is crime and we should not be careful or sorry for spelling it out to people.

Maybe... depending what ****** means? Point is - there is not justification nor excuse for removing DPF. If you don't want to be dealing with DERV issues and you don't have morale, money or whatever to stay on top of maintenance and without polluting and poisoning around you with cancerogenic soot... then don't buy DERV. You may be surprised, but I am not even anti-DERV, there are benefits and weaknesses of this fuel type and engine design. If your use case takes advantages of benefits and justifies the costs of weaknesses then DERV is still an option. What I hate are the people who think they are smart, wants all the benefits, but does not want to deal with weaknesses and are rather happy to poison and kill everyone around them to save few £ on maintenance. This is inexcusable!

Does it looks like I am born yesterday? For what other possible reason you have IS220d? Just because you prefer less reliable engine which sounds like tractor? Apart of being cheaper and "more fuel efficient" than petrol there is no other benefit of diesel car. So let's finish with that - it was money! Yes and maintenance includes things like cleaning EGR and replacing DPF when needed, not blanking off one and removing another. Like every single IS220d no matter how well maintained it is, this is just part of DERV engine ownership... I have seen many people who say their diesel does not smoke, I am yet to see one which doesn't. It is always some excuses... "it was regen, it is only when you rev it" etc. No - they all smoke! BTW regen should not smoke if done correctly, it is only forced regen when stationary which smokes. I guess the only exception is when diesel cars are used as their are supposed to be used - that is only for long journeys and maintained properly, then the smoke is minimal, still there thought. First of all you clearly don't understand what DPF does, because it is not about carbon. DPF is about soot and other particles which are not fully burn in DERV engines and which are cancerogenic. DPF filters it and completely burns it into presumably Co2 and Nox. Co2 and Nox are not good for global warming, but by themselves are inert gasses, not toxic and not cancerogenic. Well it is your choice - if you do it properly and discard the waste properly, then it should not go back into environment. But yes if you throw it to the bushes next to the tyres then you right - it pollutes environment not only with soot, but as well other things like oil and diesel.

My take was that Lexus Essential care is actually great value service if you compare around actually it is hard to beat and it keeps car FLSH. The only thing which can beat it is DIY or some nasty little garage which won't even stamp your book (not that it matters anyway) + then you have a question what to do with old oil etc. You can get essential care on the service plan as well, which further reduces it's cost if you want. So what I did was service every 6k miles, once in nasty dirty cheap garage where I can "supervise" the mechanics and I would do simple oil + filters services and just generally good look around and under the car myself. And then second one in Lexus dealership, just essential care - again oils filters + coffee for myself and always courtesy car to test and maintain my knowledge of what is on the market + chat of what deals are available and trying something nicer like LC or RC-F. Now obviously if you look at service history of my car it seems like car was serviced (stamped) every 12-13k miles, but does it really matter on 12 years/100k miles car (mine was more like 190k). I doubt it... Secondly, I knew that 6k oil changes were best for the car even if undocumented, it gave me good opportunity to inspect the car myself and get second opinions (basically where mechanic just rattles the wheel a little bit or points out at something odd) and then at the end of the year having it serviced by Lexus so that they can point out anything I have missed and sort of "tidy-up" the ends. This was as well convenient because before COVID I was doing 12-14k miles a year, nowadays I don't know what I would do... maybe just Lexus service once in 2 years, as I am doing 3k miles at most. I know this is not ideal as once oil is in the engine it ages without driving and driving little is actually even worse, but I cannot justify doing service for the car after just 3k miles. Maybe just doing oil change in cheap and dirty garage at the end of first year and then Lexus service at the end of second... not sure, I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

Yeah sounds like simple condensate, it takes a while for entire exhaust to get hot enough to boil it off, so if car is not driven often or not driven for longer journeys (where exhaust get's hot enough to dry-off remaining condensate) this is what you can expect. Right side if I am not mistaken is longer pipe, so it makes sense it take longer to boil-off there.

That is true only for pre-facelift cars, facelift cars (with wide-screen Sat-nav) all have square pad now. Lexus counts coaxials like components 🙂 So it is "10 speakers system", but I believe you are right regarding there being only 8 actual locations... Aside from counting speakers incorrectly "Premium" it is actually decent system and to be fair in my experience just as good as Mark Levinson.

Both problems can be solved by simply not having DERV engine, if you own one sadly no sympathies - you have to maintain it! People think that they can "have their cake and eat it", but that is not the case. The only reason to own diesel car is if you doing excessive mileages (preferably motorway), like 30k miles every year - at that point savings on fuel should pay back for increased maintenance of these engines requires and still provide savings initiative over alternatives. Problem is that people only look at price of fuel * fuel economy and thinks DERV is good option because "it saves money", without considering that by design DERV engines requires frequent and extensive maintenance which is not free. And I don't care how many trees you planted - you destroying my and everyone else lungs around you, because you know that black plume of smoke isn't exactly healthy. And for what? That you save few hundreds on clearing EGR and replacing DPF - that is your problem not mine. It is like saying - "throwing tyres into bushes is fine, because I planted trees... " I didn't say DPF problem can be solved by driving on motorway, what I said that avoiding short journeys solves it. Yes motorway is obviously preferable as DPF could only regen at something like 56MPH+ in 5+ gear, so you can be driving in city all day long and it will never regen. Finally, DPF regen in itself is questionable... not much different how trains dumps **** outside of stations really i.e. car manufacturers limit it to motorway speeds so that it won't happen in city, but it is still pollution regardless.

Owners who owned petrol cars didn't have issues either, sadly DPF is part of the deal if you want to have diesel - removing DPF is illegal and immoral. DPF is actually not an issue if you use car "properly" - that is drive the diesel car at least like 30-50 miles every time you start it, preferably on motorway. However, people do not know that diesel cars are not meant for short journeys in the cities, but I partially blame them for ignorance and partially not - in the end of the day who explained to the drivers that is the case, certainly not manufacturers and not the government(s) who supported sales of diesel cars.

There are cars which need maintenance to be reliable and ones which are simply reliable - IS250 is later. It is hard to believe how little this car costs to run. I am on the camp who say - "don't fix it if it ain't broken", but I think ~100k miles AT fluid will need changing. Just refreshing ~4l which is in the pan should be enough. I did a lot of engine breaking with manual downshifts and I reckon that had an impact on AT fluid as well (meaning it got dirtier quicker). Now helped new owner to change the AT fluid and car shifts an accelerates noticeable nicer (it was done for a first time at 193k miles!). Regarding weight of the car, yes - it eats front discs very quickly, so when refurbishing callipers it is quite good idea to upgrade both discs and callipers to IS/GS350 ones. They wear much slower and there is less dust. The calliper greasing is required, because IS250 has not the best design of callipers and slider pins tend to seize. The more they seize the more they rust and then they seize even more - never ending cycle. Preventative maintenance is just getting red rubber grease and greasing all pins once or twice a year. As I said - the areas you have showed does not look bad for me. I would probably get new bushings for anti-roll bar, clean the rust when replacing them and just spray paint the roll-bar to prevent further corrosion. You can check list of items I changed on my car in 190k miles... not much to be honest - you your car has loads of life left for sure:

I agree that is good economy, but I agree as well that Lexus claimed figures of 64MPG are not realistic. Besides on empty road just cruising at 77MPH is achievable on say IS250 - so again depends how you look at it.

I would not say Lexus IS250 is very simple car to work on, but it never goes wrong. I guess depends what you compare it with. I would say electrical part and engine/gearbox is rather difficult and access is award - but again you won't have issues with that and if you do it is unlikely to be worth replacing anyway. For example replacing spark-plugs is nightmare, when I did it neighbour thought it am trying to reassemble engine from bits - it certainly looked like that. Changing gearbox oil is not simple task either. The only things which I do by myself regularly is basically brake calliper greasing-up (should do at least once a year, preferably two times), pads, discs and air filter. Suspension is not difficult to work on, I replaced lower ball-joint and anti-toll bar drop-links myself, but be prepared to fight rather rusty bolts on 13 years old car. I broken the first ball-joint extractor and barely done it with second one - metal ball-joint shank had welded itself to aluminium suspension arm.

Yes I agree as well - although plugs don't need to be done @60k, considering the age of the car this is one to add to the list. As well water pump if not done. If I not mistaken these are recommended for 80k.

I always plan to do filters and oils when buying the used car, so that cannot hurt - good idea. In terms of anti-roll bar, as far as I can see (and assuming it is actually it in the picture), it seems it is only the anti-roll bar has rust, then there is bushing fitted into body rail and I cannot see any rust on body rail. Whenever you actually need to replace anti-roll bar is equally questionable. - maybe replacing rubber bushing, cleaning off rust and painting it over will be enough. At least I have never heard about anti-roll bad rusting the the level where it needs to be changed.

You welcome!