Linas.P

Yes, that is all good, but is there any Lexus documentation which mentions it?

Can somebody provide source for this? I am not saying this is wrong, but I have seen it claimed several times, but never seen anyone providing any official source saying that F-Sport has different suspension. I appreciate that different wheel sizes can impact comfort, but I am struggling to find any source for this "sport vs standard suspension". Unless you meaning F-Sport having "optional" AVS is what is being called "sport suspension" makes it ride harder? This is not helped by Lexus them-self providing misleading information like this: https://media.toyota.co.uk/wp-content/files_mf/1368722193Lexus_IS_Long_EN.PDF I tend to believe this is because different markets had some small changes and spec has changed slightly for each model years. As well @Mahiuddin have you considered GS300h or even 450h - it would be more comfortable than any IS and are generally better equipped? As well, I agree that best way to know is to test drive the car yourself, only you could decide if car feels hard or soft for you. One thing to note, check what tyres car has and tyre pressures as that alone could make car feel completely different. It is not like difference you get fitting normal tyres instead of BMW run-flat, but for example replacing standard Brigestone Potenza on Lexus to something softer an quieter can make huge difference.

I thought it was appropriate to celebrate my 4000th well researched post 😅

This is ironic that you say it... for many reason... I understand that you are hyped by some inspirational speeches, but reality is much more "normal" and sadly not as exciting as you may think. What I mean by "True AI" (also known as "Strong AI") is exactly that - artificial intelligence where computer can learn and improve by itself in general sense, to some extent becoming same as human or adapting to circumstances similarly as human, rationalising it's environment etc. This is just hypothetical construct which does not exist - some say humans will cease to exist if one is created (namely Mr. Elon himself). What we generally confuse with "true AI" is "machine learning (ML)/deep learning (DL)". Basic example of ML would be "smart" light which has ambient light sensor and could learn when to come ON based on ambient lightning conditions and user behaviour. In this example it would learn when to turn itself ON based on when user turns it ON, light would work on code similar to this "WHEN Ambient light => X, Turn the light on, WHEN Ambient light =< X, Turn the light off". All light would learn is lightning level to replaces the "X", that is all - just a line of code. DL would go further and would check if there is anybody home before running the above command. DL is not better than ML, just has more lines of code to check more conditions. Not only that both fundamental rules should be defined from beginning e.g. light would not know what to do when bulb fails if there are no specific rule to tell it to monitor this condition. Equally, it would completely fail because it could not understand why user turns it off at 1AM when there is no ambient light, because it could not rationalise that user is going to sleep, unless such condition is specifically defined in the code. This (simplification) is similar to how Tesla cars works - they have no "True AI", they just have million lines of conditions, which based on sensor data decides when to flip the switch. Then you need to understand the concept of "big or mass data". You see the only time "machine learning" can take place is when algorithm encounters exception, meaning that until something happens the algorithm cannot predict or be prepared to react to exception. So the Tesla's solution is to collect massive pool of data and just throw it at their algorithm to train it. Hence you often get these when browsing web: They are designed so that we help the algorithm to learn what is "bicycle" in this case. As a humans with our intelligence we can tell what "bicycle" is even if we see just part of it or picture is blurred or it is some kind of weird one. Algorithm can't do this until it is trained. Meaning that it will run bicycle over unless it has been previously trained to know it does not taste nice.There are many difference between "machine learning" and "deep learning", but for that you will need to do your research as it will take very long time to explain. This is what makes Tesla autopilot dangerous to use on the road - if it has not encountered certain exception previously, it won't have "rule" how to deal with it - in AI development this is called "novelity factor". That was cause of several deaths when car could not identify concrete barriers or white truck against sunny background and just simply "run them over". With enormous set-of data you could only train algorithm to be safe with certain margin for error of say - 99.9999999999%. 0.0000000001% being possibility of "novelty" situation seems like that is good enough. Well, now consider that drivers could be making as much as 25 decisions every second when concentrating, but long term average for human is ~2 decision per second. Ok that does not tell us much, but put this in perspective - if there is 1 million self-driving cars are on the road, each on average being driven say 500 hours a year, then the combined fleet will need to make 3,600,000,000,000 decision every year, meaning that even with 0.0000000001% chance of unknown situations there will be 3.6 times per year when 2 tons projectile travelling at 70MPH hit something. Ouch! The much more sad reality is that current algorithms are nowhere near 99.9999999999% correct even in "known" situations, never mind "novelties". To begin with humans can get away with making 2 decision per second, because we can drive cars subconsciously, we don't need to constantly think about angle of steering wheel or accelerator pedal, we only need to make "conscious decision" every so often (twice a second) and even in accidental situation we can react with trained reflexes. Algorithms don't have such ability, they cannot rationalise their surrounding, they can't really predict slippery road, they can't predict that toddler on pavement can fall into road and they are absolutely reactive to their surroundings. Whereas humans could be proactive and take steps to avoid potential danger even before something happens. Further issue is that our roads are simply unpredictable, we have a lot things happening which should not happen - potholes, crazy cyclists, toddlers, random rubbish, british road workers, suicidal males jumping of the bridges and many more things. Individual drivers or cars are unlikely to encounter most of them, but collectively we know about it - thus when we see cyclist on the road we know we need to give them the widest breadth possible... ML/DL does not! If our roads would be much more structured and simplified, clearly marked and cleansed from various unpredictable risks then ML/DL could work much more reliably - in reality they sadly could not. Overall, it is generally accepted that for full automation (level 5) we need to develop near levels of "true AI", at very least in areas of driving skills motorisation and rationalisation of road environment. Neither Tesla, nor anyone else (in any field) has come even close to "true AI" - so certain Mr. Elon claiming they will "soon" have full automation are dreams at best, but most likely well calculated lies to boost company shares and his personal wealth. The only argument to contrary is that humans are known for making less than irrational decisions, especially when under certain influences. So I tend to believe that in near future (maybe 10 years) algorithms will be able to drive cars statistically as a good as we do collectively. Meaning they will drive as well as hybrid between drunktard and experience driver... And all this is not even considering things like somebody else crashing into you, or systems simply failing. If that is sufficient level for you to trust your life to algorithm, then I wish you good luck! @royoftherovers - I promise you - this is interesting read if you have enough time to go over it 😁

You absolutely correct. 200t is extreme pain to get rid off, I assume that is why I was able to get "amazing" deal on it. Although, you are under-valuing it a bit - cash in hand price I can get for "buy any car" type of places is ~12k, PX for other brand ~14k, but obviously expectation is that I would be trading-up for more expensive car. I guess I could get close to 17k if I would PX to RC-F or LC with Lexus, but realistically it is not so much value I get from my car, rather discount off the car I am buying. The positive side is that when I bought it was waiting for 80k miles major service (£730), all new brakes (as I find out £1155), set of tyres (~£600), fixing driver seat (costed £4200) and cosmetically did no look great either (£600 detail job). From my luck (and a lot of shrewd negotiation) - I managed to sort all above without spending single penny. Now it has free 2 year service, all new brakes, healthy set of tyres, driver seat is fixed and I did full multistage detail and ceramic coating myself. In short car looks very presentable, if not a bit above expectation for mileage. Other strong point is that car has absolutely every single extra possible and what I believe "desirable colour" (although that is personal taste). With this in mind I set very optimistic goal that it could be sold at £17k privately, but you are right - it will be very very hard (if not impossible) to find buyer. Realistically, the only person who could buy it would be somebody in similar place as I am - does not want or cannot afford RC-F, but finds 300h unacceptably slow. It is possible that I am the only such person in UK so I am not holding breadth. Indeed I hope the buyer won't read my post before buying 😁 I have not made myself any favours here, but being objective is more important for me than loosing some money.

TRUE AI and FULL Automation will be big revolution, sad reality is that Tesla does not have either and is not even close to developing it.

I am aware of members here extending warranty past 10 years, as long as they extend it before current warranty runs out. But I never heard anyone extending past 140k miles.

1. Generally, Lexus dealers are though to negotiate with, but I have varying "success" and can give you some tips for negotiation. I find £14,988 as far too much, considering same year cars could be had for £12,500 with lower mileage. But very hard to say without being able to look at the car (PM if you afraid somebody will compete with you on purchase) 🤐 2. I would mainly look at brakes and tyres, these tend to be worn on used cars - there are many other areas (like hybrid system), but you won't be able to reasonably inspect them all. Don't overlook cosmetic condition as well, few scratches here and there may not be your main concern, but may impact car value a lot and may be more expensive to fix then you think. Either way, make sure you carefully inspect the car, or if you can't do it yourself then take it to independent garage. Very important - if you have any concerns document everything in writing, so if anything would go wrong you will have strong position. I assume you looking to buy it from Lexus dealership, but in either case when buying used car you must remain vigilant, authorised dealers are no better than anyone else - the only difference is that they most likely honour their liability if you make justified claim and won't disappear overnight. 3. as above - at least 150k, but I am sure many more. There are some IS300h taxis and if I am not mistaken they are now past 200k.

You are absolutely right - I have previously admitted myself that I would have been better served by BMW 6-series. I was tracking BMW 6 offers from the moment I started considering replacement for IS250, still doing it for over 4 years now and I have considered many of them. I would ideally go for 650i (as 640i is in any comparison worse than 640d), but all 3 are definitely very capable cars. One thing you probably haven't considered is that comparable FL 6-series costs significantly more than RC200t. The cars which costs the same are pre-FL models without digital dash and old i-Drive and thus not really comparable - below are few which are comparable (F-Sport, ML, sunroof, petrol, right colour, miles/age): great looking one, not too high miles, right colour, M-Sport BUT diesel and no sun-roof. -https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202011045775870 another one great looking BUT diesel and no sunroof and 100k miles - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202009244152048 petrol one, sunroof, low miles BUT no H&K audio - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202010235347050 and another one... the same just more expensive - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202010275485974 this one is perfect - but £30k - oooppps! - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202006130085595 So in the end why haven't I bought BMW 6-series the comparable cars costed ~£5k more cars for similar price either had double miles or were 4 years older pre-FL models the only really well equipped 6-Series are all diesels or costs crazy money they are generally very difficult to find with good combination of equipment I even considered convertibles (although soft-top scares me) You can call me picky, but over 4 years I never found one without "deal-breaker" issues. In short - I would have bought BMW if perfect BMW 6-series have come before perfect RC. You can say 200t wasn't exactly "perfect" and the engine should have been "deal-breaker" and you would be right - I made mistake believing I can live with it and I was wrong, hence the thread. RC350 is identical car and has everything I like about RC200t and address all points which I hate about RC200t. So I am fairly confident it would be perfect car for me. I indeed was wrong buying it, but I disagree with you that it is "not bad engine" (I don't think RC is overall bad car) - my opinion is still that 8AR-FTS should have never existed as an engine, at very least not until it is more fuel efficient than 4GR-FSE. Obviously, I know they did it to a abuse emission standards and it never meant to be "good engine", it meant to be "more compliant on paper" - which is exactly my experience.

I quoted you from different thread, as I would prefer to discuss it here e.g. maybe it is something wrong with the RC200t I have (and not with model in general) and maybe I drive it "wrong". To start with - condition of the car It is above average mileage, was ~59,500 and now is ~63,000, but it had Full Lexus Service History - 7 services ahead of the schedule (70k miles done @58k). The car drives completely fine and there are no weird noises coming from it. So although it is not unreasonable guess - there is nothing in my knowledge to suggest the car is "dog and wasn't maintained properly". My driving style Normally, you would be right - I tend to drive like a nutter, but here are 2 things to consider: When I say fuel consumption sucks - I already adjust for my driving style. Meaning I already consider that somebody else driving the same car may achieve 10% better MPG, as well I consider what my MPG would be driving other cars the same. So it is already adjusted for my driving style to paint the car in best possible way and it is still only gets to the level I call "atrocious". Since I bought the car we were in some form of lock-down, roads were quiet, I wasn't commuting and 90% of my miles were in nearly deserted motorways. I short I was driving this car in the fashion which is very unusual for me. I can say that I was almost "hypermiling" it and good fuel economy is simply not achievable in it even when I drive like absolute nun! So let's address the "nutter point" first - I drove IS250 like a "nutter" for 70k miles and my average was ~29.2MPG. This is ~65/35% Urban/ex-Urban. I tend to believe this is on the higher-end of long term MPGs, so I can really conserve the fuel and hypermile when I want. Again proven by maximum tank 48.9MPG - I not always drive like "nutter" and I often got high 40's on motorway. Now consider few examples below : 90% of my driving in RC200t was done on motorway, I was almost always trying to hypermile it and still go much worse fuel economy in much more favourable conditions. Just comparing to IS250 mk2 (with 130-200k miles) the respective tank MPGs are MIN18/19, AVG22/29, MAX27/49.... if that is not atrocious, then I don't know what is. my experience in RC-F is limited, but I have done ~900 miles in 2 different RC-Fs and from my experience in any given real life situation RC-F has better fuel economy. Yes you can push RC-F lower than RC200t and I am sure on race track RC-F would use more fuel, but it would lap RC200t as well, so not fair comparison. Yes - in is some specifically designed lab conditions RC200t will be more fuel efficient or if you cruise at constant 50MPH on perfectly flat road RC200t may do 40MPG and RC-F would only do 33-36MPG - but these numbers do not translate in real life practical fuel economy. I am 90% sure I would get slightly better fuel economy in RC-F, driving it like for like. my mate came from Bristol in MB CLK350 (old 2007 v6) and we went to sea side together (mostly motorway), as it happened we both needed to refuel before we set-off, so I asked him to reset his trip and we compared tank MPG like for like. We were not hanging about, but on exactly same road, same traffic conditions and all the rest when we did brim-to-brim comparison he averaged 34MPG and I averaged 24MPG. How is that not atrocious for nearly 10 years newer car. back in 2015 I had IS200t as courtesy car during the service and I noted that fuel economy was tragic, it was nearly new ~6k miles car and I did like 16MPG in 80miles I drove it for. I didn't pay much attention back then as I drove it like mental to be fair - I wanted to see what is "this new and better" IS250 replacement is all about. I wrongly thought that if I would drive it more "reasonably" it would have better MPG. Conclusion I have dozen more examples with similar results, but I won't bore you with them all... with following in mind - car has "much worse fuel economy in much more favourable conditions" there are only 2 explanations - it is either inherently fuel inefficient (my opinion) or it is broken. I understand that you tend to later and although I disagree given the condition of the car, I appreciate that is reasonable alternative opinion.

I think we all can decide here what we want to do and are prepared to face consequences of it? The topic is about speedometer accuracy and not what we think about limits. You were off-topic, I was off-topic - I hope we can agree we could end this here.

Based on completely arbitrary and unjustified rules and thus cannot be respected.

(1) Actually, you are not wrong, I think one half of the reason is my justification of my choice. The other half is splitting away off-topic from original thread: In the first thread I have shared my experience with the car, I never asked for other cars suggestions, but that is natural off topic. In nutshell - it is a thread about my experience with the car as if other cars don't exist (it is about me). I probably stated myself that buying this cars was mistake - automatically meaning that other choice existed and could have been made. As I noted there, I don't mind discussing it especially when suggestions considers the criteria I had when buying the car - problem is I got constant barrage with suggestions which ignores the key requirements. This is where this thread comes in, I stated clearly defined criteria to cover the type of the car I was looking for, in one hand to show that there are very few cars who really does what I need and to other hand genuinely discuss alternatives. I thought maybe I just haven't made the criteria clear and therefore it is unreasonable that people would know what I want and why, but maybe there is something I have really missed and not considered... This thread is about all the other cars which are competitors to full-fill specific needs and I as a person am irrelevant here (it is about RC200t). (2) Not so surprising considering my longstanding praise of Lexus brand reliability, build quality, premium materials used and the looks of specifically RC. So as you can see you only focused on one half of what I was telling all along. Even if you look back to my very critical review of RC300h - I praised it's looks, I praised the interior (except of fake plastic carbon fibre trim pieces), I even praised eCVT box in that particular car. I only criticised the engine. As well in RC200t have never criticised gearbox, I think it is great gearbox but crap engine. I know that you stated opposite, not sure what is your true opinion is, but it seem that you think it is gearbox issue and not the engine's. So all that said I think it was right to create this thread to separate two quite distinct discussion with different goals. I hoped that people could stick to the topic, but it seems that threads are merging together again. As alternative cars choices are still being suggested in other thread and my personal use being considered here - like in @doog442 post just above (which is perfectly reasonable and justified post, just better placed in the other thread).

Yes that is bizarre thing RC300h/200t has same warranty as RC-F. Probably my example was bad, because this is exception rather than rule - most M car and AMG costs a lot of money to warranty compared to their more common models.

That is my plan... however I don't believe RC-F will cost under £25k in 6-12 months... or even in 3 years time. RC-F is great car, but again I would say it has more power than I need, or could reasonably use. Yes some may cost £25k, I think a year ago there was one even for £24k, but they most likely going to be absolutely destroyed condition. I would imagine RC-F in good condition will remain ~£30k car for foreseeable future ~3years. The only reason I didn't buy RC-F is because it is too expensive to buy, too expensive to own and I would just be paying premium for all the extra power I could not use - like a "supercar tax" (or so I have thought). Not sure how Lexus missed the gaping gap in their line-up between 200t/300h and RC-F, they covered 2 ultimate ends of the market with nothing in between. The only clear mistake I made - I assumed that RC200t will be more economical than RC-F (and I don't think this is unreasonable assumption), thus easier to justify commuting in it. It is beyond belief that heavier 5L 467HP car is more economical than lighter 2L 242HP car - this defies laws of physics, logic or common sense! There are other consideration, but all really becomes irrelevant considering how terrible 200t is e.g. I barely got insurance on 200t when I bought it and I ended-up paying £1036 for 10 months (~£1243 for a year). I would imagine RC-F would cost 50% more. Road tax is as well £565 vs. £240. But all in all I think this £800/year extra is worth it... Amazingly, I would probably save that much on fuel alone in RC-F (who would have thought that getting RC-F is a way to save fuel!).

How many doors does it have? and how much does it cost? 😁 @paulrnx - and you are not happy for me setting some criteria? I imagine if criteria is not set - in that case it could be literally any car. And then what is the value of the discussion, even without discussion I can straight away conclude that any car has a matching person who thinks that car is perfect for one reason or the other. There are even people who like Reliant Robins! There is even a dedicated owners club for it... I am sure if I ask them what "coupe" I should have they will anonymously say - "Reliant Robin - that is a perfect coupe for you!".

I am aware of that, engine however is just one part of many in car. That 5L V8 does 32MPG is not amazing or surprising, RC-F 5L V8 does that as well.. with even more HP. What is amazing is that 2L Turbo in RC200t is so uneconomical. Which goes back to my point that this engine should not exist. How somebody in Lexus came to conclusion that "yes this is what we need, this is good enough!". I don't think that Jaguar is bad car, it simply has it's place - "that is fun to drive weekend car". If I could choose I would probably have some sort of EV (not Tesla) for commuting and I can see Jaguar as perfect 2nd or 3rd car. If it has fault then it isn't an issue - it is just weekend car and you can sort it out in the mean time before you need to use it. However, that is not good enough for a daily..

That is fair enough I guess... Although criteria is not made for 200t to win, but rather on realistic and practical considerations - like reliability, convenience/technology, comfort etc. The criteria is there to make choices comparable and reasonable - because without it... then it could be any car. Somebody could come and say "what about £250k Aston Martin DB4? amazing car!" indeed it is, but not a realistic alternative to RC200t. Would Nissan Z370 meet the criteria - yes it probably would... but I am not boy racer and I don't want nasty looking basic interior and I would rather keep my teeth when going over bumps. Same for Jaguar - it is outdated EOL car, which is very unreliable, when I need to go somewhere I don't want to do it in courtesy Toyota Aygo.. It just isn't dependable car. Mustang comes close - but no close enough. You can get 2.3L eco-boost for ~£25k. So too expensive and not really an improvement, never-mind atrocious build quality. Dodge - that is non-starter, not sold in UK... I mean if you don't find this criteria "reasonable".. then I don't know what you would.

Actually, my dealer (Woodford) did the similar thing when I enquired about RC-F/LC... probably they decided that I am not serious enough buyer 😁 This was ~February, so may be covid related. Actually, I didn't even enquire, but rather they called me and invited me to their 2019MY sales event, as part of invitation they asked what model I am interested in and I said RC-F or LC... all good so far.. nice lady called me back and asked when I am available and I think we agreed like Saturday 14:00 and she said she will arrange both cars for test drive. On the day - I arrived and it is just like normal day, no signs of event... My first thought was "where are my canapes and my champagne?!". Either way they had no clue why I came and just random sales person got to me, we discussed what I am interested in and he said that they don't have either car for sale or to test drive. RC-F just outside was already sold. Eventually, dealership VP came around in his LC so they "borrowed it" and let me try that. Then they checked the stock and they had only 3 LCs neither of them good deals - Black/White £72k, Yellow/Black £68k and Red/Black £66k. He ignored the RC-F enquiry altogether... Then they said they will call me if anything more interesting comes about (Black/Red in particular), but they never called me since February. I assume nothing "interesting" came about...

That is because you need very special circumstances for it to really shine... most owners never mind reviewer never discovers those rare moments. As well as I mentioned it is relative, could any other car do it better and for less - surely. Reviewer job is to compare and contrast, so that is what they do and 300h does not score in this aspect, because there are better cars for it, that does not make 300h bad car - just not the best for this type of activity.

Clearly does not fit criteria, see above. Yes very last years of production were 2015, but you would be expected to pay £28,000 for 2007 car made in 2015. It could be argued if it has rear seats at all, but let's say technically it does. 5L supercharged engine sounds awesome in theory, but it is extremely unreliable and expensive to maintain car. Equipment and technology is poor (even for 2007 standards) and by 2014 this car makes little sense.

There is delay in kick-down no matter what, it is not about engine not running, even if engine is running there will still be delay on 300h. This is not comparable to 450h which pulls almost right away (well at least the mk4 does). Now again, I found that in spirited driving on the winding roads, with no other cars around and in manual mode this does not matter. Not only manual mode is more responsive, but you can change ratios quite instantly. In any case you can get car into right ratio for the corners and it feels quite good. This does not work in traffic though.. I would point out that this is not best practice on the road, but if you noticed the gap and in different lane and just thought "I will jump in there", this won't work in 300h - you going to press accelerator and there is going to be delay significant enough for that opportunity to pass. 300h must be the worse car to drive "aggressively" in traffic. As well in traffic you cant actually use manual mode... it kind of disengages after a minute or so. On winding road where you keep pushing the car and keep changing ratios, the gearbox will keep your ratios for some time. But in traffic even if you go into manual mode and then slowdown and accelerate with traffic, it still going to go back to automatic after some time - so when opportunity comes there is just delay again until it goes back to manual mode. Keeping it in manual mode is little bit finicky - even when I did my driving on some more twisty roads, sometimes if there is straighter section you just going to notice the car no longer cares about your selection and although your dash still says "gear 4" the gearbox has long shifted-up. As I said in the begging - if you know limitation of gearbox, you can work around them (especially on thirsty country roads), but it does not mean there are no limitations.

There are no hybrid Q60, you probably confusing it with Q50s. @dutchie01 - Infinity Q60, especially 3.0T would be interesting alternative for right price. As for "not expensive" claim when I bought my 200t, the sole car sold in UK was listed at £38,000 (more than RC-F), so it was out of question. The rest were 2.0T varians and thus I haven't even considered them, not to mention they costed £23,000 or more. Further, Infinity quality as actually very poor, not at all on the same league with Lexus. Q60 is more like RWD competitor for Hyundai Coupe. By the way - I have created separate thread to discuss alternatives for RC200t/300h as this thread was never intended to discuss what car "I should have had". I would appreciate if that discussion would take place there:

I will start my-self with few cars which I believe could be considered: 2014+ BMW 435i/440i - this is the only BMW 4 series which could be considered as an upgrade for RC... all the rest having 2.0T engines and thus no better in any way. BMW is faster and better handling car, however everything in BMW is an option and any cars under £20k are very poorly equipped in comparison to Lexus. Further, BMW is not as reliable, for the price under £20k would have higher mileage and would be few years older. Not as cool as they are on every corner. 2014+ BMW 640i/650i - much the same like BMW4, just even more dull looking car, even older tech but 650i comes with V8. Although for under £20k - one needs to expect car in very poor condition with loads of miles. Audi A5 3.0TFSI - the only reason car on the list because technically it just about makes the list. 2014 is the last model year of old Face-lifted Audi A5 - it is terrible to drive as AWD means very vague steering, the car is originally from 2007, so the tech inside is terribly outdated. MB E400 - the only reason car on the list because technically it just about makes the list. It is late C207 body face-lift car with horrible MB tech from 2009. Sadly, no other car makes a cut: New MB C/E-Class coupes are over £25k New Audi A5 is over £25k Infinity Q60 is over £25k To specifically address this point - I considered Q60 when getting RC200t. Problem was there were like 8 Q60 in UK at any given time - on the day I bought my car there were 7 - Q60 2.0t from £23,000 and single Q60 3.0t for £38,000. Add on top that Infinity is very poor quality car, based on Nissan but even less reliable - this doesn't make for appealing alternative. Today there is only one car for sale and that is Q60 3.0t for £29000. So not exactly great choice. Finally, I believe that any car is interesting provided the price is right - that is what I always said about 200t by the way. I never said I won't buy it, I just said "the price has to be right".

@dutchie01, @noby76, @paulrnx and few others... are very interested to know what are alternatives for RC200t/300h (excluding RC-F). I will start from my opinion - Lexus RC being 2016 - 2020 model, the realistic alternatives have to be no older than 2014. For example BMW arguably had better tech , so RC tech in 2016 would be = to BMW tech in 2016. Few conditions just to keep comparison apple to apple, cars must be: Petrol/Automatic RWD (or AWD) 2 door 4/5 seat have a functional boot/folding rear seats Luxury brands and "GT class" - means small "sports cars" like Toyota GT86 or BMW 2-Series are excluded. Sold in UK under £20k for Petrol, under £25k if hybrid. I would say obvious contenders are: BMW 4/6-series Audi A5 MB C/E-Class Coupe Infinity Q60 I would like to invite everyone to participate in discussion...