Linas.P

You saying it as if that is not an issue... well I guess it may not be issue for you? Paying for software is fine, have no issue with it. However, paying for software to enable hardware features you have already paid for is not. Simply said, there are things which works in software world, but could not work and should not be introduced in hardware world. This is nothing new either - yes you have Adobe software on the cloud subscription basis, but when you buy 1TB hard drive (or more likely SSD) it is not like you get only 500GB and then manufacturer charges you £1.99/Month if you wanted to use remaining 500GB. Again as I said when it comes to hardware the software updates can go only one way - that is to improve how hardware works. This is again common in hardware world e.g. when you buy new graphics card often there are bugs and issues with drivers at first, but over time manufacturers optimise the drivers and you can get more performance then you initially had (this is not considered good practice, but it does happen). It never works the other way around, it is not like one day it works well and next day 1 out of your 2 HDMI ports are disabled unless you pay £2.99/Month to use both. This is just ridiculous! Ohhhh WOW... that is amazing! And what it would have done previously? Just mowed down cyclists and crashed into parked cars? Surely, that was not ready to be used on the road if it could not even overtake cyclist or parked car. In other hand I may have liked the "feature" - just let your Tesla to clean the roads from the cyclists and blame it on Mr. Elon beta software. On the serious note, parked cars and cyclists are not even what is considered "novelty", this is literally most basic of the basic features - I am amazed Tesla allowed these cars to be on the roads without having it. This just shows how terrible and dodgy the company is - for any other company that would have been absolute showstopper putting such car on the road without feature to overate cyclists. This is perfect example why Tesla autopilot is the only one for sale - because it is not fit for purpose! Making system fit for purpose is much more difficult, the simple difference is that unlike Tesla, other companies have at least basic common sense and some integrity not to kill their customers or other road users.

But you may need to pay subscription for it, so don't get carried away - £22.99/month so that your panel gaps stay straight!

And even then if you the lucky one... Tesla panel gaps are not that big, it is much more about how inconsistent they are. What surprises me most is that back in the day carswere assembled by hand and had flimsy bodies fit on ladder chassis. The whole car alignment was a difficult process as it wasn't enough just to fit individual panels, there were certain sequence in which panels have to be aligned for it all to work. Obviously, this process took long time so probably wasn't done well on cheaper cars very well. Not only Hillman Hunter, but to be honest on any stuff British Layland did - going on strike was more popular than aligning panels gaps for sure. Either way, we are long past ladder chassis design and even flimsiest uni-body cars no longer have such issues, nor the cars are hand built. So panel gaps are simply no longer an issue in modern cars - the only time you see issues is if car was in accident and whole frame is twisted. Robots don't make mistake either, it is not like robot fit's parts inconsistently. As such it is beyond me how Tesla could not get it right... But I am sure it will be fixed - they will release software patch for alignment soon.. I have heard they doing that on weekly basis now!

Sorry did someone mentioned Brick-Wagen somewhere?

I just quoted like for like - actually I quite like "neglectable" as a word to describe Lexus "strategy" in UK i.e. the number of sales which is so small that one would not feel the difference if they simply neglected the market all together.... so they did. True fanboys can turn a blind eye, even when paying their own money! Look at the fashion brands - people pay thousands for t-shirts which are made in the same sweat-shop as other non-branded ones for £8... and they do not complain, nor have issues with colour which fades with single wash, nor they have issues with seams which rips apart after single use.. as long as it has brand logo on it.

£74 all year long... quite decent price for what is ~6-10years investment (promise no more off-topic). I just going to state that used or cheap tyres are always false economy, OEM (Brigestone) tyres on IS250 were quite bad and any decent tyres from Conti, Michelin, Pirelli, Goodyear/Dunlop will always be worth price! Obviously, there are always exceptions, but generally anything outside of those main "premium" brands will be more often miss than hit. Finally, the thing most people fails to consider - tyres are wear item meaning that the only costs which makes sense is £/mile - as such £150 Michelin may be work out cheaper than £65 other tyres, because it will do 40k miles (so £1 will take you 266miles), where cheap tyre will do 8k miles (which is £1 for 126 miles). Now the mileage will wary depending on use and there are special purposes where certain tyres will be better, but just looking at the "upfront" price is wrong perspective.

I feel like even 33 is neglectable as well... but so is Lexus sales in UK 😁 The stats overall makes total sense, not repeating myself too much, but if you remember I mentioned that Tesla is largely designed for Amurican urban/sub-urban commute where public transport is not developed, it does makes sense there, but it makes much less sense in European cities which are more tightly packed and better connected. As such in EU cars like ID or Honda-e, or simple Leaf makes more sense than Tesla. Yes they don't have Tesla range, but they are not being used to travel far. The EV purpose in EU is to be second car and sort of glorified shopping trolley, not the primary car to commute from and to work. In most cities you can't even commute to work by car at all and people simply use public transport which unlike in US is fairly comprehensive (still stinky thought... at least in UK). In the end of the day owning Tesla becomes more of a status symbol, like owning latest iPhone or monitor stand for £999. Could you make calls, use whatsapp, facebook, open email and take decent pictures on 350EU/£ smartphone?! Yes absolutely you can... yet people still buying £1000 iPhones, not as a smartphones, but simply as a status symbol. I increasingly think that Tesla is Apple of the car world. And people are increasingly paying unjustified premium for Teslas and accept all the issues as if they are not there (fan-boys/girls).

Sounds to me like generic wheel alignment issue and not RC-F specific. The tyres you have are not bad for UHP summer tyre, dry/hot roads or even occasional track use (could be considered "budget track tyre"), but they are not great tyres for - fuel economy, comfort and in my experience all Brigdestones I had tended to tramline more than I felt was necessary (although my experience were more Potenzas 001s and Turanzas, not specifically Potenzas re050a, which is more of sport/track oriented).

I would not say... "not considered"... I have consider it, but thought this was quite obvious. That is why I said fuel consumption normal for ~175kph, what I think is high is the consumption ~95kph. As well re: 300h vs. 450h - it is not only RPM, there are points where larger and more powerful engine is more fuel efficient, because there are certain speeds and loads where engines are very efficient and very inefficient. For example maybe over 80MPH 450h just get's to it's "efficient power range", where 300h is already under-powered and thus have to do a lot of extra work and is inefficient. At the same time @55MPH 300h is more efficient because that is where it's most efficient range is. Looking at simple petrol/diesel examples that is still true e.g. 2.0l diesel/petrol engines will generally be more efficient around town and at lower speeds, but once you cruising at 120MPH the 3l petrol/diesel will be more efficient as they don't need to work as hard at those higher speeds. But in general I do agree - for 120MPH/200KPH autobahn driving SUVs or Hybrids are not the best choice, especially if good fuel consumption is the goal.

Tyre threads (no pun intended - that is the discussion and not the rubber itself) are always huge can of worms. Everyone have their opinions and favourite brands, identical tyre might work on one car and suck on another, different sizes of same tyre may be better or worse, tyre characteristics may change during lifetime, roads used, time of the year etc. Further there are different driving styles, different values and different needs. In theory it is possible to discuss this topic purely objectively and with facts, but in my many years discussing it I have never seen such thread. One can come and post 3000 words essay with well researched facts and the next person comes and says "no - all that sucks, the best brand is X because I had good experience with it on my totally different car and different driving style when driving in Morocco and therefore your facts are rubbish"! My advice is to avoid such threads and the ones about premium vs standard fuel as well... or which engine oil to use... that one is very interesting as well! Surprisingly we kind of agreed on batteries in this forum - Bosch S4 068 is the best (now challenge me 🙂 )!

Yes I find Tesla, software enabled features highly dubious, lacking transparency and suspicious.. sometimes outright anti-consumer and illegal. If Tesla fitted seat heating on your rear seats, then the cost was transferred to you when you purchased the car, there is no way Tesla fitted the heaters for free anyway and just let you pay for enabling them. This may work like that in software world, but it does not in hardware. Point is - if hardware is fitted to your car then you have already paid for it. That is fact! So if they disabled your heated seats unless you pay for using them, this is extortion, it should be illegal! What next paying monthly subscription for using built in autopilot.... ohhh wait that is already the case.. 😁 I do understand the concept, but it could work only one way... you could have hardware feature which is disabled due to software not being ready yet, because Tesla as a whole is beta project. With future updates they can enable it and that is what is often done on software projects (disabled features staying dormant until finished and then getting enabled). However, this should never be applied in opposite way, especially if you have hardware already in place and working.

@Hapsit12 - sorry for taking over your thread (that is sadly reality of public discussion - more off topic tan on it)... Does the answer satisfies you? That is - your fuel consumption seems normal for ~175kph, but on the high side for 95kph which could be due to tyres or other factors? or you still have concerns with fuel consumption? @Spacewagon52 - no worries, I am still researching...

Quite opposite, I would fall a sleep as it is soooo boring... yet my dream would be the nightmare! Basically, you have to sit with your hands on the wheel, but do nothing like some sort of paperweight/slave! Just try it at your desk - turn the video of car driving on the road form drivers perspective, no sound no commentary and preferably not a rally stage, put one hand on the mouse, another on your keyboard and do nothing for 30 minutes, just sit there and watch. I am certain it will be the most boring 30 minutes of your life (p.s. don't do it, but you can imagine what I mean) Not sure if anyone have same issues, but driving aids makes me to lose focus from the road, bored and sleepy which is the last things you want on the road, I have few friends who are the same, one cannot even use cruise control. The worst places for me are 50MPH average speed limited roadworks, you set cruise control and just sit there basically doing nothing. Few times I nearly had accidents like that and statistically most pile-ups happens exactly in such circumstances. I always argued that I am much safer driver when speeding and focusing, rather than driving slowly and not focusing. And I am not promoting speeding, I am just saying that focusing on the road in front of you is most important, distracted driver is always most dangerous one.

The IS220d actually sold quite well, the problem was that engine was notoriously unreliable... and that is an issue for the brand which recognition is build primarily on reliability and build quality. At the same time Germans were at the top of their game with diesels, making them more reliable, more powerful and more fuel efficient. Second issue was that it was offered only with manual gearbox which had rather weird ratios... perhaps ok in other European countries, but in UK one would have to drive in 5th gear in motorway. On top of that, they again brought only single model with 2.2l engine to compete against 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.5 and 3L competitors. If they had like 1.8, 2.2 and 3.0L diesels with both manual and automatic transmissions I am sure the model would have been much more competitive. So Lexus diesel offering never had a chance in the first place. Potentially you are right - European subsidiary management may be hyper retarded and Japanese just gives them too much of the control locally. Instead of focusing on promoting Lexus brand in Europe as long term leader, they simply focus on profit here and now, but making brand less relevant with each year.

But if that is the case, why bother developing IS mk4 at all? Yes it would make sense if they dropped the model worldwide - no money wasted for developing and certifying new car as sales volumes does not make sense for such expense. However, they have already spend all the money developing the model and now only artificially limiting themselves by simply not selling it?!

Indeed - Porsche Macan competitor... Those are selling like hot cakes in UK, I was told there was 2 years waiting list when it launched! Or RC450h for that matter... I am quite confident that was a plan at some point, otherwise what was the point putting GS sub-frame in the front. Likewise they kind of abandoned CT - whereas I am not fan of the engine in RC200t or 300h, I consider that both engines would have made CT quite exciting little car. What is the most surprising to me is that they have all those engine options already on the shelf and it seems with very little development they can get them into all the models, in some cases they even have them in other markets (like IS/RC350) - so I really do not understand why they don't take advantage of bringing them in... But hey... what are we talking about here - they went and developed IS mk4 which from all reviews seems like great car and they decided not to import it to entire Europe... how does that make sense?!

well... to begin with I can't because one can only edit the post for short time! - so let's just say I was not able to prove it yet.

Gang, what is your agenda? Why are you so hell bent to prove that Tesla Autopilot is not just a beta version of the software? At first I just though you are just enthusiastic about new technology, but your repeatedly put videos of the same test system begin tested, claiming it is somehow more than it is - just a very limited beta version of level 2 drivers assistance and not any form of autonomy. This is just suspicious! Not only it costs $10,000 to test, but as well it does not add any value due to legal constrains. Even Tesla clearly states that : That it is being updated weekly means nothing at all! if anything that is just a proof that system is being developed as we speak and thus needs constant bug fixes and "weekly updates". This is not indication of it being good, rather opposite - it is indication of system being incomplete and unreliable.

I will have to concede on this one (for now), I just could not find my source... it is possible that I took the figure out of context or it was for specific motorway. However, I definitely have not invented it myself - it was statement along the lines of "average free-flowing traffic speed on motorway is now 82MPH" taken from some respectable newspaper (like The Guardian). I will report back once I find it. Not necessary, even newer automatic 6/8 speed transmission is still more efficient due to things like torque converter lock-out which was not present in old 5-speed. 2GR-FXE (400/450h) is actually older than 2AR-FSE (like IS300h) and is based on 350 (2GR-FSE) which is rather old design. There is new 300h A25A-FXS which is improved version of 2AR-FSE as well (like ES300h). The only "newer" 3.5L hybrid is the system branded as 500h and engine code 8GR-FXS (LC/LS) and it is different design and not based on old 2AR-FSE. To clarify what I was comparing in order of efficiency from most to least are - 450/400h 2GR-FXE vs. 350 2GR-FSE vs. 300 1MZ-FE I never said hybrids are totally inefficient on motorway - I just said that simple and comparable petrol engine will be just as much if not more efficient due to hybrid basically becoming a heavier version of the same petrol engine when at speeds above 60-70MPH. This could be further extended to any road with very low traffic where one can drive at very consistent speed without braking, as the whole benefit of hybrid system is to reduce fuel wasted when braking and accelerating. Not so much beneficial when cruising at constant speed and actually could be detrimental if batteries are regenerating.

What is "reasonable" motorway speed? According to statistics average speed on UK motorways was 82MPH in 2019. Is that reasonable? On top of that UK has one of the lowest national speeds in Europe, other nations having 80-90MPH and what is relevant for this topic - Germany having no limits on part of the network (from my experience that translates into actual 100-120MPH cruising speeds). Is that not reasonable? That said at exactly 70MPH (actual, which would indicate like ~76MPH) the IS250 will have same fuel economy as IS300h, at 80MPH (87 indicated) IS250 will have better economy than IS300h, but IS300h will have significantly better fuel economy in start/stop town driving. How much better? well it depends at how busy it is, how often you stop, what is the speed, what time you drive, what route you take etc. but generally hybrid will mostly be more fuel efficient than equivalent petrol. Is there any difference between what we saying or agreeing on here? I feel that all that said it is fair to summarise then, that hybrids are most beneficial in cities? Is it not? If my assumption is correct, then your comparison of RX300 (assume this is mk2 model with 1MZ-FE engine) and RX400h (mk3 with 2GR-FXE engine) is fundamentally flawed. Let me explain why... you comparing two engines which are technologically quite different. RX300 is an old 3L V6 (1MZ-FE) without direct injection (significantly less fuel efficient) and RX400h is significantly newer 3.5L V6 with direct injection and Atkinson cycle (2GR-FXE). Not to mention that I would consider 1MZ-FE under-powered and over-stressed for the large and heavy car like RX, which will always translate in poor fuel efficiency. And 2GR-FXE will have more modern gearbox and overall drive-train increasing fuel efficiency. So in terms of fuel efficiency RX400h will beat RX300 in any circumstances with or without hybrid e.g. simple non-hybrid RX350 (2GR-FSE) would beat RX300 as well. In terms of my experience, I have not owned hybrid myself, but to be fair I did more miles in various Lexus 300h's than I did in my own RC200t (3000 mile+).

wow... indeed - it seems I am not the only one who is changing 😁

Mine is RC200t, so my fuel consumption is worse than cruise ship with 3 swimming pools, casino and 2000 passengers 😞 I only have limited experience with RC300h (~1000miles), but when I reflect on it the fuel consumption was rather good, certainly not a weak point of the car, but not massively impressive either. I managed to knock it down to 28MPG in the city, but to be fair you really need to try hard if you want to see below 30, I was literally trashing the car all the time. So city would be at least around 30-32MPG in my experience. Outside of the city you can easily get it to low 40's if you don't exceed ~60-70MPH, but anything above is not very impressive. I was getting ~34MPG on my motorway tries London <> Gatwick. I am sure there are many long time owners of RC300h here who can provide more accurate figures than I do.

I don't see reason to argue whenever it is 70MPH or 65MPH... I general I think below around 60-70MPH hybrids are more fuel efficient than equivalent petrol car (especially in start/stop city traffic), 60-70MPH is where they become more or less equal and over around 60-70MPH is where petrol becomes more efficient - for the same reason I have mentioned and we both agreed about (diesel will drive circles around both thought). Under 70MPH my old IS250 non-hybrid could do 44-48MPG (although I assume you comparing it to RX400h?) and this is matched by new IS300h. However, around 90MPH IS250 still does 40MPG where on IS300h you only get 34MPG. So... I am not sure what you are disagreeing with here, because what you have mentioned is exactly what I claimed, I have experienced the same myself and you just said you experienced it as well.. So you are saying that you disagree with me, but what you say is actually in agreement?! Are we just arguing about the language I use rather than the facts themselves? Instead of "hybrids are only good for cities and lower speeds" I probably should have said "hybrids only excel/are most beneficial at cities and lower speeds". Does that make it better?

The consumption at 180-200km/h is absolutely normal, if not somewhat low... I am assuming the speed is "indicated" rather than actual which will be ~8-10% lower. Meaning that you were doing ~ 175km/h (@110MPH) and at that speed 22MPG is about where I would expect car to be. The consumption at 95km/h is somewhat above average - 7.4l ~32MPG, and I would expect NX to do ~38-44MPG at that speed. It would be normal perhaps on winder tyres... What are the tyres and tyre pressures? 180-200km/h is absolutely normal cruising speed. I would say ~160km/h is the baseline for cars on autobahn. Here is where I sadly have to give crown to diesels - in BMW 530d you can cruise all day long at 200km/h and have ~6-7l/100km. The reality is that hybrids are only good for cities and lower speeds (under 65MPH ~100km/h). Anything above that and they become just heavy petrol cars with a baggage of batteries in the back. Motorways even at retarded British speeds are not their strong point and will never be, high speed German autobahns are hybrid nightmare.

Motorway should be fine, fuel economy isn't as impressive over ~65mph (which is normal for hybrids), but apart of that it is fine for cruising. What I found little bit sketchy are A-Road overtakes, but they always are. In terms of lights - Xenons lasted 10 years on my old IS250 and I am the guy who always turns on the lights even during the day (I am actually amazes that in UK is not mandatory like in the rest of Europe) and all LED lights in that car have never been changed for over 14 years. Yes LED headlights is newer things and still quite unusual, but I am sure they will last very long time. Actually, as I understand one failing would be a warranty job.