Linas.P

Yeah... £95 is amazing. Mine is now lower ... £750, but it used to be £3000 for a while.

Obviously, if the gauge inside shows it as 1.2bar/17psi - it does not mean it actually is 17psi... it may as well be showing alcohol content in yogurt. But that is the only reference I have without actually going on dyno and attaching dedicated pressure gauge and checking it. And below is exactly that. I am not saying it cannot be modified, I am not saying that I don't like car modifications in general... just that majority of the people (myself included) do not buy these cars to modify them... hence the aftermarket is as well non-existent.

Lexus standard 18" wheels are staggered.

Two options here again: Withdrawing car from the case would guarantee it won't be written off. But you will get completely nothing from insurance and you will have to cover ~£1000-1500 repair bill yourself + you insurance next year will be sky-high. Actually, trying to get insurance to agree to repair your car. "Benefit" of that - you will only have pay sky-high insurance, but nothing for repairs. Actually, I advise not to withdraw it yet, because your insurance will be sky-high anyway, it does not matter what you do now - so may as well take advantage of them repairing your car if that could be agreed. UK insurance is a fraud, it will increase when you get into accident no matter who's fault it was or whenever you make the claim or not. As you were at fault here, again it won't make any difference whenever you get your car repaired on insurance money, scrap it and take cash or windrow it and repair yourself. I think if all fails and you could not agree with insurance to repair it, and they insist on writing it off... I think (but I cannot guarantee) you can withdraw your car from the claim at any point. It is just sad that in our country after paying thousands for insurance every year you are still better of to agree with third party yourself and pay it out of your pocket without declaring it to insurance at all.

I think we (both) just focusing to much on the words rather than substance. To be clear I never said CT was "poor quality", what I said is exactly that: I just expect any car with Lexus badge to be at that level of "true" Lexus. CT quality is good, but it is overall closer to Toyota Auris, then it is to say Lexus IS... that is my point . Upon the launch of CT, it was the only Toyota derived car in range with this noticeable step down from Lexus quality. So if somebody is asking - "are Lexus quality is becoming worse?"... my answer is "yes in some cases - like introduction of CT, ES and UX", but "no in some other cases, like with introduction of LC... the rest LS, RX and NX are still representing the Lexus quality). I guess in summary, it is not that Lexus quality is becoming worse, it is more like their range is diverging in terms of quality - high-end models are becoming better, low-end models are becoming worse.... and they just removed all the middle ground.

If you looking to keep the car I would rather negotiate with insurance and insist not to write it off. I know it is not always possible to do it, but you can argue with assessors report and even insist on using different assessor. If they write it off, then not only it will have category attached to it forever (affecting the price etc), but as well I think it will have kind of moral value of the car depreciated for you (at least I would feel that way). My car was written-off and I just could not justify spending on it's maintenance after that e.g. thought in my case the accident was just a scratch and did not impact the car at all. Besides you right - some companies simply won't let you keep it anyway, so when it is written off you may not have a choice. So just going through the options again: Insist on fixing it and not writing off = you will have same car fixed to reasonable standard and no material loss. Basically, if you challenge the list of fixing needed and insurance sees the benefit in it (e.g. you say that based on their quote you only consider that £1800 ow work is actually necessary and remaining £2000 is made up as it always is), then they may actually agree with you. Paying £1800 to fix the car is cheaper for them than paying say £5000 for it to be written off. If financially viable buy it back (it may be most financially feasible as well) e.g. in my case Insurance offered £3800, whereas I only valued my car at the time ~£3000 and let me buy it back for £531 and I knew the repair prices is 15 minutes and some polishing compound. And even with cat-N the car was still worth £2000. That was my case - you may be completely different depending on options, mileage and what your insurance actually offers. But bear in mind moral issues - as I said knowing it was write-off I could not put myself to spend any money on maintenance and keep-up. Take the car what they offer, but likely that is going to be below market value and you are unlikely to be able to replace the same car like for like. Bear in mind that your insurance will go ballistic next year regardless, what options you choose here won't matter. Generally, the worse is the condition of you car pre-accident, the better is to take the pay out and leave the car. Ideal situation newer car with lover mileage, but really poor condition - insurance will price it high where actual condition would not justify it. The worst starting position is - high mileage, older car in excellent condition (that was my case) - Insurance does not want to pay anything for it, even if car was excellent condition before crash. As for actual repairing of the car - I can see myself completing it under £1000. Bumper is £160, used headlight £150, decent shop will take another £300-450 for painting the bumper, minor pieces and sundry parts. There may be some minor details which could not be seen, but this is clearly not a major damage. Obviously, Insurance estimate I would expect here will be at least £3000-4000, new light alone with fitting will be £1000 on it's own. Bumper with all internal pieces and painting another £1000, probably part blend on bonnet, and side panel.. they usually add charges for inspection, storage and unknown sundries etc. And it suddenly turns into £1000's. Here is my damage which was £3200. Yes it includes refurbishment for both front wheels and missing piece for headlight washer witch turned out to be £487 + VAT, but still... it was "just a scratch".

First of all you need to consider that my response was specifically to the previous post where it was stated that "perceived quality" is NOT what matters and only reliability does. You could argue that better QC attributes to theoretically better reliability in CT, but I think we can both agree that in practice that is not going to have any significant impact to either car. The specific thing I said what that CT does not represented substantial improvement over Auris, or substantial enough to justify separate brand/model and certainly price difference. And indeed price is another big thing - indeed some options offered on CT were not offered on Auris, but they were not essentially there for CT being more premium, but rather just because you literally paid for them to be there 2 times over. The difference was akin upper trim level for the same model. It would not be much different if Auris just had 2 more top trims - and that is exactly how market reacted to the model as well. It never really competed with Premium hatches from other premium brands, rather just top of mid-price market... Compare Golf and Audi A3 and you see exactly what I mean - difference is substantial. Not only completely different engine choice (especially more powerful ones), but overall whole car is fundamentally different, more luxurious... bar some insignificant details, nuts and bolts underneath, small generic switch gear etc. Again apply same test for Lexus IS - what is the car in Toyota range it was based on... none... one just didn't exist. Lexus IS was fundamentally different car in different segment, different engines, different suspension, different power-train layout. Sure it shared some of the same components, but there was no car in Toyota line-up which would be anything alike IS. For the same reason you can see I listed all Toyota derived models EX, UX and CT as the worst quality within Lexus range. This is not coincidence and actually not something I deliberately planned. The list is based purely on my experience with all cars and they feel substantially worse than cars which I consider "true Lexus". There is nothing specifically wrong with them, but first mind I have when I get into them is "is this fancy Toyota"? Yes they have little bit softer and premium materials inside, but fundamentally they don't feel as solid or as premium than other Lexus models which do not have direct twin in Toyota. Maybe there is a difference between purpose designed and built premium car and the car which is simply had make-up and was cosmetically upscale beyond it's true quality. It is actually hard to describe, or even more give specific examples, but I definitely feel the difference. Be it just closing the door - Lexus door will fell heavier, more sturdy, the shun will be more firm with no secondary rattles. Small detail, but leaves experience of the premium car. Finally, I agree that whereas CT was somewhat decent at launch, but it became increasingly worse as the years gone by. If at launch it was just slightly better than gold and just slightly worse than MB A or Audi A3, then by the end I would say even Mazda 3, Golf and even cars like later Focuses are nicer/better equipped.

Exactly, if you loosing grip on either wheels, then it is already something wrong. I guess that was my point - but I must admit you spelled it out much clearer. Still... quite a lot. My car has some issues towards the end (192k miles) and few times I got as low as ... 22MPG tank if memory serves. On the motorway I would easily get high 30's even low 40's. I guess you stating your "spot" consumption? Have you very measured whole tank? If it is anything below ~25 In reasonable driving (even around city) and without winning every traffic light then you probably should look for some issues. I guess granted with COVID and only very occasional very short runs + could weather, short term fuel consumption could be rather low, but over whole tank it should still be from mid to high 20s. I have very heavy foot and my all time average was like ~28 driving ~70-80% of time in the city.

Probably... but I doubt the substance will change... Will be along the lines "we sell our cars in key markets which are US and middle east... you second class pesky europeans with your stupid european needs and competitive german cars are at the bottom of the list of our superior japanese issues.... yours sincerely Imperator Toyoda"

But is it more reliable than Toyota Auris (not Corolla) it is based on? And if not, then what does Lexus offer in terms of value for the extra price if we compare the cars just by reliability alone? I appreciate Lexus is inherently just more "fancy Toyota", but at the same time I expect that extra price for Lexus will buy some extra feel or better materials, fit and finish. This is not the case with CT and that is why I score it worst out of all cars Lexus has offered, closely followed by UX and ES which equally don't offer any tangible improvement. So exactly as you mentioned - "how nice it feels at the key touch points and in perceived fit and finish". On these 3 models there is no such perceived improvement over similar Toyota. I am not saying CT is overall "poor quality car", but again even Auris is relatively nice car compared to wast majority of cars in the segment, certainly better than all french or italian compact cars, Skodas, Seats, Nissans, Hondas, Fords... The only cars which is quite nice in that segment are Mazda 3, CT, Auris as well as class-leader Golf. Then we have MB A class, BMW 1-Series and Audi A3, all of which meant to be competitors for CT, but are substantially nicer inside and more luxurious. Taking Audi A3 as example it offers substantially more than Golf and even thought it is same car it feels quite a bit more luxurious. CT hardly offers any improvement on what arguably is already decent fit and finish in Toyota Auris and as such I am struggling to see what extra value you get for paying more. They have already brought CT replacement, sorry if you missed that memo... as I have spoiler alert for you - it is Lexus UX. After driving both side by side I consider UX to be substantially nice than CT in both "perceived quality" and driving, but that is not very surprising for nearly 10 years never car. Especially, UX250h is far nicer to drive, faster, more responsive and still more fuel efficient. And again as I said - even Toyota CHR would be substantially nicer, because it and UX feels almost the same car. Now compare above with "true" Lexus cars - for example there were no comparable car in Toyota line-up to Lexus GS, RC or IS... and even when compared to direct competitors like BMW 3 or 5, Lexus felt better built and more reliable. CT does not feel better built than Auris, never mind Audi A3. And again when it comes to cars like LC, LS or RX - then it becomes clear what that extra money for "dressed-up Toyota" buys you. Those 3 cars alone can justify Lexus brand existence because they are noticeably on the different level from anything Toyota has to offer (bar Century) and in most cases on the different level from the rest of the market.

Isn't that what threads mean to be? 😁 I still would like to know what will happen if car comes into corner too hot and when it starts sliding, the driver brakes and increases steering angle FWD vs. RWD.

Should have said mk 3.5 there... they may get confused as true 4th gen is not yet in the making 😄 But, I did that in every communication to Lexus for at least a year (and I had quite a few communications). Previously, I as well said that they should bring 350 into UK market. Whenever they bothered to reply is basically along the lines of what Cris said, maybe different words but saying the same: "we aim to offer the competitive selection of models which our clients wants"... inferring that nobody wants outdated things like cars with engines which actually has some power or saloons... Everyone nowadays wants some some model-fluid hybrid cross-dress-over SUV "thing"... I blame liberals for that 😄

And with that I agree, point is the cost then becomes not £399. And as I said I know it is possible to remove the delay and change gearbox management. I think issue remains more principal, Lexus should not have this gutless engine even if that is just the case of tuning... and even when tuned let's say they find another 30hp which is more realistic than 60hp... it is still just 2.0L T which does not sound great, isn't really fast and is very uneconomical. If I just make quick comparison with RC350 - that thing does 60 in 5.4s... and that I consider fast. It is more economical and I imagine with minor exhaust mods can sound great... if Z350/70 or GTR can, then 3.5 V6 in Lexus can as well. I really never understood reason for RC200t existence, but now that I own it I understood it even less. Have you actually tried IS200t/RC200t? If not... maybe would be good idea to do it when dealerships opens (provided you can find any for sale). My understanding is that factory turbo is already on 17psi as indeed there is boost gauge in the car and it shows 1.2bar... which as it happens is exactly 17psi. Even if less restrictive intake could help turbo to get bit of extra air, then again we are talking about more substantial mods than just connecting the box.

245 on front is just silly. I didn't know they even fit without rubbing. Yes Standard fit is 225/245 on 17" and 225/255 on 18". When I got myself 18" wheel they came with 255s on the rear and that is massive overkill + having 225 on the front at the same time made the car balance very front biased, almost felt as FWD... as if you accelerate on corner the front would slip straight away and it was difficult to rotate car around the corner. When I changed tyres I fitted 225/245 on 18"s, but to be fair it could go further to 225/235 to actually make the car handle like proper RWD. The only problem that standard 18" wheels are staggered and 235 would look too much stretched for my liking. Obviously, they won't be as stretched as 225 on 9.5 rims, but still.

I had mtec discs on my old IS https://www.mtecbrakes.com/brake-discs.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiArvX_BRCyARIsAKsnTxMBBswsRfIcoVB-i7m2M739LxcEeKIeAEg3ZARi-Ah9n1vqoIcjgcMaAiusEALw_wcB However, just ordered Brembo replacements and they have hub portion painted as well (paid £28 for pair if not mistaken). Basically, just get new set of brake discs (preferably during discount period) and they will be fine. In worst case if hub part is not painted, just clean it well with degreaser and spray it with the choice of your colour from spray can to protect them from corroding. I got mine from https://www.autodoc.co.uk/car-parts/brake-disc-10132/lexus/is/is-ii-gse2-ale2-use2/19066-250-gse20?supplier[0]=30 when they had 60% off for brake parts

ok... so be it... but we both agree that with 200hp in shape of IS250 mk2, you really don't need to be specifically bothered about "losing rear end" at any moment. Just not that kind of power where one needs to think twice before driving it in rain or snow.

you I have similar picture in my RC... but the actual tank average almost never more than 24MPG.

@H3XME I was just thinking more about the tdi-tuning option and concluded that it does not address the problem with how the car drivers to begin with and further probably cannot be true. I wish it would be as simple as paying £399... And I understand you not trying to market it to me or care either way... but I just thought with first hand experience with the car I will put some thought in it (or rather why it would not work). To begin with the hesitation on RC200t is an issue with throttle response and isn't really specifically about the power. It is more to do with gearbox ECU (or GCU) set-up and secondly throttle response delay set for amuricans (the "unintended" acceleration non-sense)... I am not sure where this is set, ECU or independent control unit. Now I will call tdi-tuning box a "cheater box" going forward, because that is what it is - it is not "true" chip tuning, but rather just a box which intercepts sensor signals and manipulates them (and ECU) to believe conditions are different e.g. shows "more air" to trick ECU in sending more fuel. So the issue number 1 - what the unit tdi-tuning is offering isn't addressing the issue at all. They trying to give more power, maybe potentially save some fuel. I may have said that car "feels" under-powered (which it is), but first and foremost the issue is how it is delivered and not overall lack of it. IS250 has less power, but it delivers it better for example. And yes it sounds like more power should be equal to better acceleration and response, but as I said - without addressing throttle response and gearing I doubt extra power would make any difference. Sure it would probably get better 1/4th mile times, but that is irrelevant for "daily drivability". The solution here is specifically removing unnecessary delays in gearbox and ECU (which is possible). Obviously, cheater-box cannot do anything with gearbox at all, but even when it comes to ECU I really doubt it could affect throttle response. The only possible way I can imagine they would be tackling that is tricking ECU in thinking that accelerator is say 50% when it is actually only 25%. On paper that sounds like it would make accelerator twice as sensitive, but in practice the delay is still there - so if there is say 1s delay before car starts accelerating... the only difference is that after 1 second you will get from 0% to 100% throttle in half-time. Throttle on RC200t is already like on/off switch, so this would make it even worse. The second issue is whenever they can actually make more power. In most basic terms more fuel + more air = more powahhhh!... Fuel is easy - Toyota being Toyota won't use even 50% duty-cycle on injectors (and besides 8AR-FTS has additional port injectors) and I am sure fuel pump won't be 100% either, so there is plenty room for adding fuel, but the question is - where they get more air? Now little detour in terms of air... on turbo engines you kind of have 3 basic option: small turbo - good response, good low-end torque, but no top-end power and overall smaller power. large turbo - poor response, no low-end torque, but loads of power at very end. twin-tubro or variable geometry - good on both low-end and top-end, but more expensive. Now 8AR-FTS uses twin-scroll turbo... and what twin scroll does is simply separates exhaust pulses for more efficiency. Lexus has opted for probably smallest twin scroll turbo in existence, so the engine has good response (for a turbo engine), but has no top-end at all power past 4400RPM. So in short - this turbo already gives all air it has at ~4000RPM... so where the extra air is coming from? For them to claim 60+ HP they need to get more air from somewhere and this is not happening on stock turbo. Now 2.0L T engines can certainly have more power, M139 does 416HP, but it does make almost double the boost compared to AR8-FTS. Either way what this tells me is for this engine to make more power it needs more air, for more air it needs more boost... and for more boost it needs bigger/different turbo. To simplify my conclusion - the power on this engine is limited by how much air it has and not by how much fuel it injects. Cheater-box can make engine to think it has more air and make it to inject more fuel, but it cannot physically get more air into the engine. If there is no more air, then there will be no more power. Final thing... they can reduce the fuel consumption. The reason why my car (and most turbo petrols) are so inefficient is because more boost, means more heat and that means increased risk of pre-ignition (knock). To avoid it they just dump fuel (runs right) which is inefficient. So the cheater box can lean out the fuel, but misreporting the o2 sensor or lamda and potentially masking knock sensors. Yes car will run leaner and burn less fuel, but at the same time it will eventually knock itself out. Not good for reliability. ..... final final thing - that is why I am saying that the only way is really an engine swap or different car. Yes 8AR-FTS can be made to make more power by good chip tuning and turbo upgrade, but we talking fairly low volume custom tune and R&D. After that it can potentially go to 300-350HP on stock internals, but by this time the cost of tuning will be similar to throwing 3.5L V6 in it or even small V8 - which would be inherently less stressed, more reliable, more responsive and probably more efficient engine.

About what I would expect... but at least you knew what it will cause and honest about it 👍 Again - I am not against modifying the cars, just never considered Lexus to be a make to do it with. As for handling it would be interesting to know how much it was affected by simply throwing away budget tyres and replacing them with more decent rubber... As well - are you saying previous owner fitted all 4 tyres 245s? or just rears?

Yeah... that has some stance. No issues on inner edges of the tyres? How was it to get it aligned?

And they would have been in the ditch with any car with the similar power, going at similar speed, the only difference that they would be facing the ditch. + they probably had their stability control off for "better effect".

Well, except your don'ts were more like "common sense thing not to do with any car". Like why exactly would you suddenly accelerate in mid corner when road is slippery... ever? Well, unless you want to lose control... in which case you will achieve exactly that... even in FWD car.

I could probably agree with that if we compare fundamental layout, bit with all stability control, suspension tuning, weight balancing (all the development for last 50 years basically) not applied. Yes if you take pure unassisted RWD it will be less forgiving to drive than FWD, but in practice with all modern technology the difference is so minuscule that overall it does not even make a different when driving. When driving think about road conditions and not the driving wheels of you car. I have driven in quite extreme conditions and there never been occasion where I would think "if only I had FWD instead of RWD here...", indeed I may have though "if only I had better tyres, generally different car like SUV or at least AWD".

Interesting... I am sure hybrids didn't have folding seat in the beginning. Was it option in later models? I guess min being non-hybrid, the only additional bonus is full size spare wheel and little bit deeper boot floor and more even floor when seats are open.

I found RC more practical thank IS due to folding seats, but yes - if you mean rear seats then they are not for comfort. However, I would argue that does not hurt car's practicality for me - first of all, because I don't sit in the back and secondly because 99% of the time I am in the car alone and at least 90% of the time it is two of us. So rear passenger space is non-issue. Just a little problem.... Lexus discontinuing RC as well!