Linas.P

You right with the Lexus there is strange feeling, where you never bothered about car breaking down (I guess unless you own 220d) and there are only few other makes to provide that... perhaps only Honda and Toyota matches that. In the other hand I am really struggling with Lexus line-up for a while now - it just doesn't make sense and becomes compromise cluster****s... sort of pushes you to spend more than you want, or drive something far slower than you want without any middle ground. That is how I ended up with RC200t - 300h was definitely not the car for me, just too slow, RC-F was sort of expensive, not only to buy, but as well to maintain ... and there are nothing in between. I hoped that RC200t will be slightly better than 300h, but realistically it isn't. If there is anything where it is closer to RC-F compared to 300h... that is fuel consumtion. Yes it is slightly faster, but only in the straight line and after figuring out which gear it likes. This is where ze Germans comes, they will have the car exactly how you like down to 0.1s to 60, 0.1l of displacement... and that is tempting. I am sure I would be happier man now if I would have gone for something like BMW 435i, 640i or 650i.... or at least I think so without having breakdown with my Lexus for so long. One other thing Lexus does well is "options" - with germans you will never find used car equipped "right", because they have million options. With Lexus is fairly easy - all cars have decent standard equipment and then maybe 3-4 options, therefore it is not hard to find car with all 4, if that is what you looking for.

I think that regardless of what we are discussing here it would be right to conclude that this engine defeats the purpose of its own existence. Can I find workaround and perhaps get used to it - maybe, but that does not make the design any better. The sole reason was economy and emissions, but clearly it is worse in both. Yes you right - I cannot run it @1500RPM, because it simply would not have enough power to move car ar heavy as RC and as such would be inefficient, further turbo engines are designed with force induction in mind, so they never run really efficiently outside of boots range.... yet when turbo spools-up and then again economy goes through the window. I think what I want to highlight here is the absurdity of the current trend of downsizing and turbocharging. Yes... I know we cannot do anything about that, but equally I just want to be very clear that anyone saying L4+t is better than either L6 or V6 are simply wrong, or haven't driven the cars and just qoutes stats from the paper. Further, I think one of key points I am trying to convey - Lexus spent 10 years and 100s of millions on R&D just to make their cars worse and that is disappointing! Obviously, they did it because of regulations, but they had a choice - do something in interest of their customers and invent something -or- do something to please the governments and their own stakeholders. I think in the end of the day, I consider myself loyal to the brand, but I cannot ignore that the brand looked into what is going on and said "screw you customers"! And I know, this is business, not charity, but that does not help... especially knowing Lexus could have chosen either without sacrificing much. They could have gone and developed something which would be realistically both more powerful and more fuel efficient (like 4GR-FSE in 2005), but they chosen to simply look into regulation and instead of making something great, just make something which would satisfy the regulation by the letter rather than in spirit of it. I would imagine the next question would be - "so what do you want, if you don't want to find the solution?!". Precisely... I am not looking for solution - I am just describing how bad and nonsensical is the design. At the same time it does not mean I do not appreciate the suggestions, and I will post here if I find any solutions for it, but that is not main reason why I am posting - main reason in nutshell is just to trash the trashy design and lazy engineering.

To better fill the arches you need to consider lowering the car... I gone from 17s to 18s wheels and it didn't make much difference in how it filled the arches, yet made the car to look higher. I think 18s are as big as you can get without lowering the car and still looking alright, but you definitely need to lower it for 19s and even on 18s it would fit arches better with slight drop.

well... I haven't moved to the darkside yet (ze germans), so I will stick around the forum anyway.

Not that I know of - I probably should look deeper, before making comment of how old fashioned it is not to have customisable mode. I cannot find anything about it in owners manual... so asume it does not exist.

Yes, if you select sport+ and set gear leaver in S, then it becomes fully manual. However, it doesn't really help - gears are too short and have too much of overlap in ratios. So let's imagine I am coming towards roundabout @50MPH, I would need to downshift from at least 5th to 1st sequentially. I guess theoretically I could get used to it, but it is far too many gear ratios to make sense when changing manually - this is not exactly fault of the car, but my brain is capped at remembering up-to 6 gears 😣 Secondly, although gearbox is the same the engine is very different - you have wide power band to play with and with 200t, it is very short. Further, if we are talking about making it more efficient, then I need to avoid having car in RPM above like 1500RPM... this is not really achievable in practice.Whereas if you want to be efficient in F, it is enough to shift around 2500-3000, which is natural range to be at.

I might give it a shot, however I feel issues is much more fundamental than gearbox "learning" my style. One thing, which may support your theory is that I found car to be more fuel efficient in sport mode, than it is in normal or eco. I think it doesn't upshift as much in sport, therefore when I want to accelerate it gets quicker to right gear and I get more predictable feeling - in turn I don't need to press pedal harder than necessary just to make car shift, less shifting and more accurate gear selection for the situation results in generally more efficient driving. Seems counter intuitive, but in the end of the day it burns less fuel. The only issue with that, suspension becomes noticeable harder and Start/Stop no longer works... compromises and compromises with Lexus.

All the cars listed were 2008, so my comment was about 2008. If you mean regarding the past prices - then as far as I can remember there was 1 red 2011 car from ex-club member @£17k and had ~34k miles and few more 2010 cars with mileage ~40-60k. The only cars over 20k were late 2012 cars and at some point one with 12k miles costed even more than cheapest RC-F. The reason to pay more for 2010 car is that it benefits from one significant thing - it could still be warranted. Further, whereas 2009 car pretty much the same as 2008, the 2010 cars had revised suspension which was more compliant over rough roads. Still I would not pay much for mileage and what you saying is only true if you not planning to drive the car and keep it low miles... which for me kind of defeats the point of even owning the car. If you buy "high miles" car and drive it a lot that won't impact the value you paid, yet if you pay extra for low miles car and make it high miles... well you basically depreciate it more. I feel it would make me uncomfortable to put miles on the car knowing this. Other consideration - if you planning to track the car or modify it, then again you better of with car which has already depreciated. One would degrade and later upgrade much of suspension anyway, so getting pristine low miles car really adds no value.

Don't even need to compare LC500 vs RC200t, I am doing exactly same drive in RC as I did in in my IS250 and V6 used to do 26-28MPG, where 2L+t does 18-22MPG now. Obviously, this is to do with how I drive the car, but the point is that I driving both cars exactly the same yet difference is unbelievable. It is actually, funny how arguments change when I have the car now - previously I would say exactly the same thing i.e. "2l turbo is just for emissions and inferior to v6" and people would say that I am sad loser who simply cannot afford the car. Now when I have it, the response is - "of course 2l turbo is 💩... everyone always knew it". Other thing is that RC200t is never runs without turbo on (that is probably what you want in order to eliminate the turbo lag), so basically one cannot drive it efficiently. Finally, it is true - I should have known better, should have learned my lesson with WV Passat CC that small turbo engines sucks. LC is definitely in the different league, but I am not sure if I even want that. I am satisfied how RC looks and regarding general practicality of the car, the only issue for me is the engine and for that I don't need to go as far as LC. probably, eventually... The reality is that - if I px RC200t to RC-F it would be like ~£5-10k down the drain. So I will need to wait until right car comes-up for right price and I would have finance to "absorb it".

mk3 has exactly same engine and gearbox as mk2, if you want the same but never then I guess it is good choice. However, my opinion was always that 4GR-FSE was a good engine for 2005, but not so good in 2013 and even less appealing in 2020. Further, if one can have the car which is fundamentally based around same engine why pay say £12000, when you can have same experience for £3000?! What, I would ask myself in this case - does the looks and slightly "more modern" infotainment is worth 4 times the price. I think I have been in you your place for at least 3 years and could not justify spending 4 times the price for something I did not consider "worthy upgrade". Bare in mind as well that mk3 is heavier and, at least in my opinion, does not feel built as solid as mk2. I personally always wanted coupe, so that is how end-up with RC, but if 2 doors is not something you need, then perhaps GS450h would be my choice.

@dutchie01 - it wasn't for the looks alone - it was good deal all considered, right colour combo, fully loaded car and competitive price. The problem with "trying" one is that you never get to "know" the car in simple test drive. I was quite lucky to get RC300h for weekend and that was enough to find all good, bad and ugly about the car. However, testing one in dealership for 15min with sales guy on your side gives you no idea. On 15 min drive, I would take 200t over 300h 10 times out of 10, but equally I would think that simple 250 is better than both.... "yet probably I just need to get used to it". Problem is that it won't happen. I had IS200t few years back as loaner during the service, but as I wasn't really looking to change car back then probably I haven't given it right shake down. My memories was that I didn't like it, but it wasn't "offensive" to drive. Contrary, had spin in LC500 today and it instantly felt "right" and natural place to be, the strangest thing is that it was more fuel efficient than 200t during "spirited" test drive, or as spirited as it gets with sales guy by your side. That LC500 is better than RC200t, that would not surprise anyone, but at the same time I feel it supports my argument that 8AR-FKS is just s*** engine design. Just how 500hp and 2 ton LC500 is more fuel efficient than 2L turbo RC, makes no sense! Obviously, I don't need RC to get there, simple RC-F would have done the job, but I would have never considered RC-F before living with RC200t for some time and understanding how bad it is. As well as I mentioned, at some point I have decided that I will go for either 300h or 200t, whichever comes first with right options and for right price. 200t was first to come and I don't think my opinion would have been any different. In entire Lexus lineup the only remaining reasonable engine is 2UR-GSE now and without going into entire discussion about 350 (2GR-FSE) I think there is clear issue with that.

Obviously, just an opinion, but I think... must be the price. Early 2008 IS-F starts at £12-14k and that is ignoring some more tired examples on facebook going for £9k. Yes these cars have 30-40k miles less, but nevertheless they are out of warranty and early model year cars. If you ask me I would not pay extra £3-4k for the same car only because it is 60k miles and not 96k, mileage is not exactly a problem for Lexus as long as there is service history. Equally, not sure if that is still the case, but around summer time there were several 2010 cars at similar price ~17-18k, so why would one take 2008 model, when 2010 can be had for similar price? So again, the type of buyer who is going for 12 years old sports car with high mileage is likely to be a person who is trying to get it at cheap price and not exactly in position to pay premium just to knock down few miles and these cars are just too expensive.

This make the fronts 9.3mm closer to the arch, my guess is that fronts could scrub, but rears should be ok (~8mm wider). You could do your own measurements and see how much you have from original wheels and whenever the difference can be accomodated. Perhaps if you get narrower tyres (like original 225s) in front, it would tuck under due to more stretched profile

I believe that centre bore for lexus is 60.1, so 66.7 will clear, but I am not sure if having oversize bore is good - maybe someone with more experience on aftermarket wheels can comment. The pattern is fine - 5x114.3, but if I understood you correctly the set you looking at is square 19x8.5j? I don't know for sure, because you have not provided offset, but it looks fine. 6.3mm should not have major impact in front and will certainly be ok in the rear (standard tyres are actually wider). For reference OE offset is ET45/50 and once you have your offset available you can check yourself using page like this one: https://www.willtheyfit.com/

Funny enough - I have same issue with my old car which needs to be fixed before selling: As said above, this should be fixed by replacing some gearbox oil/fluid - planning to do it later this week. If I remember right, there are no way to actually drain the fluid, so it is relatively log process of adding fluid and then waiting for it to drain.

Ohhh that is why... "totally makes sense". This "charity excuse" just so outdated, are there any people who still believes it?

I just noted you have RX400, which might have different sequence to set the windows, however above definitely works for mk2 IS. I have done it several times now.

This is the actual car in autoshow - the key point however is that it is official 2021 car. Why would anyone spend £2 million on £80k car ? I guess there are people who are rich and stupid enough to spend such money just to be first, but Lexus is not like Bugatti where it would count or attract the interest. Further even after spending such money, there are no guarantees one will be able to register and drive the car, because that is not production model. There might be ways of legitimise it, but then by the time it is done the actual production model will be out. To have it simply as showpiece in your collection - I mean I could get it done cheaper - give me LC, angle grinder and you can still keep £1.8 million.

This is probably crue to say, but I am almost happy about it... I would call police if I see such thing happening, but I would not help for sure... and knowing police always takes 5 hours to respond (that is unless you made offensive tweet) - it would have same results.

That is right attitude... I hope you understand that I am trolling a little bit, but at the same time not all people going to be as careful and systematically checking components as you described. further, you have indicated that most of the fitments would get thrown away - which then makes more sense. And I do agree that if there is ever risk with LPG, it is almost never to do with the tank, more likely some leaking hose. my comment as well was limited to specifically what I have quoted i.e. "it would be good to buy it and strip out LPG"... certainly that sounds like last idea I would ever have i.e. buying unknown crashed car with LPG and stripping presumably everything.... or worse buying used LPG system stripped from the car which was crashed. In your case that does not apply, because you know the car and you know what is fitted, when it was fitted and how the car was crashed.

Well... I guess if you put it that way... still I think few cans of stove gas on fire and duck tape will be more cost efficient way to burn yourself 😂 I am not saying LPG cannot be done right, but this really sounds like asking for trouble. Not that I care... just saying.

Would you really take used aftermarket LPG system out of the damaged car?! I mean I know that people running cars on LPG are frugal and sometimes borderline suicidal (not pointing at anyone in particular here), but salvaging used LPG system from crashed car seems like step too far...🤕

The cars targeted are generally due to ease of access to the cats themselves. It doesn't matter how low or high your car is or how good, bad, small or large is the cat. For this reason scum targets certain cars where they know they can lift the car and fit either angle grinder or saw to cut-it off. I noticed that most affected cars are older minivans/hatchbacks with single cat in the middle of the floor like Toyota Previa or Corrola - big single cat in easily accessible central location. For example something like V6/V8 IS or GS are less affected because they have 4 small cats on 2 different pipes and upper to are very hard to reach - scum have no time to cut 4 cats out and play around. If you ever see the video - they spend maybe ~1 minute on the job, strong hydraulic lift, gets under the car - 2 cuts for maybe 15s each and they running away. Looking at the pictures of RX I can see why they are popular - again one big cat in central location, car is high so no need to really "tuck-it in": Compare that to LS, and I think LS is less likely - 2 cats which are harder to reach: However, you never know - scums like these are always opportunistic and if it means in 2 minutes they can have 2 cats instead of 1 in 1 minutes... I think they will try. Ease of access is just one of the criteria...

probably makes sense... I just though, it doesn't look damaged, has relatively clean MOT, miles never been an issue for these cars... so what is the reason for splitting it apart. Further, they are so rare and market is so small for parts, that there are hardly anyone interested. Seems like it would be worth more whole than in parts, but I might be wrong. Good luck with sales.

I am just wondering - why you breaking it, any particular issue?