Linas.P

I guess the difference is that Dean for our Faculty, now I believe President and Grand Chancellor of entire University... was herself American, therefore when she was in charge of selecting the place and design for new campus she built it to the more American standard i.e. with parking spaces, crazy I know! She as well told me that the place for campus was specifically selected on previous "brown site" so that building the parking would not be an issue. They had central London campus and obviously expanding parking was not an option there, as well majority of students were from Essex and Kent. They actually done the most democratic thing possible and had a student survey asking how they would prefer to travel to new campus given an option... and students overwhelmingly voted for driving. Now bear in mind that was like ~2003 or 2005 when this took place. The planning for new campus etc took until ~2010 and it was nearly finished by 2012 and that is when Council made a massive hissy fit over parking. So I guess difference was not "dckhead master", but actually unelected government official putting his nose into business of other people. It was not like Council was paying for building work or anything, just pure political agenda behind it, taking it away from students, working behind the back, not allowing university to serve the students well. Sadly, she refused to tell me the name of the councillor as I was in little bit of the mood of giving him nasty surprise back then.

Let me correct that one for you, intention of my statement was - "the only reason people do it in circumstances where driving would be cheaper and more convenient is because". I think you should not take the statement as absolute either, so that is kind of your issue that you taking it as absolute... sure if I am going to run my 5k in the morning, then I will be running not driving, because that is the point of running, I want to exercise and I love it. I would not achieve much by making 5 rounds around the park in the car, right? Likewise if we decided to cycle and have a little picnic in the park when the weather is nice, then we will be cycling, that is because we chosen to cycle. When we go for little shopping in Sainsbury's which is literally 400m away, we walk, because that is most sensible choice. However, when I go to work in the morning I would definitely 100% without doubt would rather drive, but I can't, I am forced not to drive so I use public transport. And it would not only be significantly cheaper to drive (I reckon £1.50 in petrol), but as well significantly more convenient, cleaner, comfortable etc. but obviously I can't, because congestion charge would be £12.50 and parking would be like £48, because London had dozen of "unused" multi-storey car parks demolished just in last few years. As well some of my friends now living in LTNs where I am literally prohibited of entering, because only residents can enter. Likewise the place I am living in does not have visitors parking, in fact it has 30 parking spaces for ~200 flats. Why? Because the estate would not get planning permission without cutting down parking spaces i.e. government mandated developers to build buildings without parking, so that residents would be inconvenienced and could not own cars. So if somebody wants to visit me they can't drive and that actually had negative impact on me as I have to find alternative place to meet my friends, I would go to their place, but now that is LTN. In other countries government specifically mandates opposite e.g. minimum of 90% flats must have parking, so that public roads are kept clean, in UK they mandate basically "chaos". Another example, when I was in University my campus had MASSIVE parking, but students were not allowed to park. Basically when council realised that ~2000 spaces car park was for everyone to use, they threatened university with withdrawing approval for entire campus planning permission. Because entire car park was already built what happened was that they fenced most of the car park, so the staff carpark of ~280 spaces remained, there was little 100 space visitors and deliveries car park and 2000 spaces car park was all built but completely fenced off and not used. In practice only disabled students were allowed to park. This is by the way what faculty dean told - she said the councillor told her "pffff ridiculous, why should students be driving, they should be taking public transport, better get used to that!". At least we agree on this - "if something is desirable enough you don't need to coerce people into doing it".

Should we call this and "understatement of the century"? We are talking about the car which is probably worst quality car ever made... certainly high place in top 10 of worst cars of all time.

That is one of the big issues I have with current policy. If BEVs would be cheaper and actually better, and more convenient, then there would be no need to convince people to take them-up, but they ARE not, they are much more expensive and they are inconvenient... and the only reason any of them sells at all is because ICEV owners are severely punished. Same for all alternatives, public transport is not better, cycling is not better, walking is not better - the only reason people do it is because something was artificially done to make driving impossible or very expensive, like LTNs, ULEZ, Congestion Charge, parking sports destroyed/no parking etc. So it is all being achieved by negative action, tax until it hurts, bans, harassment etc. I cannot see any policy which was positive in this transition except of maybe some subsidies that only limited number of already well off people could take advantage of.

I think pre-orders are meaningless. Take for example LC500 which is by the way absolutelly excellent car - pre-orders were oversubscribed as well. I believe they planned total of 2000 cars worldwide and only UK has pre-ordered like 500. How many cars were sold "organically" since then, seems like none!? And we are talking about car with wide public appeal, strong second hand values and genuinely good car. So I am really sceptical about the sales outside of group of very specific people who really needed it. I think 170 is all the sales that will be achieved overall, maybe single digits in years after that.

And that is exactly what I think as well... Besides, despite being technically impressive, I don't actually enjoy it... Yes it is fast, but that is it... The reason why I rev and accelerate in ICEV is because I enjoy the noise it makes, not because I necessary need to go as fast. So I am only interested in fast acceleration for "complete experience", not just for sake of going fast and electric cars just can't provide it.

Just wanted to add - I didn't meant to offend anyone by putting cars into line from "worst" to best. As worst Lexus is still probably better than most other brands, so that is not the point. UX is fine for it's size and fine for the market niche it occupies, maybe even a little better than competition, however at the same time it is undeniable that Lexus has made better cars over the time, most importantly GS mk4 was one of those cars where Lexus really knocked it out of the league. LS was always good, so it acts as a benchmark for all other models in my opinion and in that sort of comparison GS mk4 is pretty much in the same league, I would argue even slightly better than LS of those years. It has almost the same quality, but much never tech, because in 2012 GS was new model, whereas LS came out in 2006 and only got facelift in 2009 and 2012, so by the time GS mk4 came out in 2012 LS was already 6 years old design and GS was just more modern car. It really took until 2017 that LS really became better again with the launch of mk5. Anyway, that is long way of saying - finding compact car comparable in quality with GS is exercise in futility.

Except LS could be used as personal cars and have certain appeal to certain type of people, whereas LM are only possible to use as car for chauffeuring somebody, you can't just buy it and let's say drive your family around. I guess it is not impossible, just doesn't make sense.

Funny enough I was just reading same article... Malaysian embassy going all in... the only sad fact - those 170 cars are all the cars they will ever sell. I have no doubt there is niche market for them and that niche is desperate enough to pre-order them, but I just can't see any random British person walking into Lexus dealer and saying "yeah - I will have that please".

I also think we broadly agree on both the issue and the solution, even if we have different opinion on the details. I guess I am as well more relaxed about consequences even if I don't deny them... I just have less empathy in general. BUT... I think my main concern is that current "Climate Action" not only does not lead us to the right direction, but rather seems to be designed to hide the real issues... i.e. it masks the problem. I think it was well illustrated by story @LenT shared of outright ignorant view some people have and the current "actions" just plays to that narrative i.e. people demand "solutions", because in general they want to do "good", they are given diversion and they just follows that diversion, without questioning and understanding it, but they are happy because they feel like they did enough. So in this sense wrong action, not only does not achieves what we need to achieve, but diverts the resources and makes it even worse. As an analogy - it is no different from misdiagnosing the disease... imagine one has cancer and thus have headache, but are give painkillers and sent home... the outcome I guess is obvious. So our current "climate action" is painkiller which just masks symptoms without dealing with problem, whilst that problem is becoming worse.

I guess you can call me snob if you like, but I am particularly sensitive to small details that creates what I consider overall "quality". What you describing I would probably call "practicality", not the "quality". Hence I am saying "mk3 is step down from mk2", if we look from practicality perspective, then obviously IS300h is better than IS250, more efficient, more modern, lower tax etc. So you can say and you would be right - "it is more sensible choice". However, if you look at the materials used, leather, soft plastics, soft padded rubberised dashboard and door cards, even carpets etc. then IS250 would have been more premium and better quality. Now going onto GS mk4 - in my opinion, and it is subjective, had best of both world - materials that were better than previous generation and it still got all new technology. That is why I rank it so high in terms of "quality" of Lexus cars. Is UX more "practical" and more "rational" choice - likely, but if you value the quality in same way as I do, then it is just not comparable to GS. OP seems to clarify exactly that above.

... that is not something I call myself 😄

So that would be example of opposite... I think Bernard meant "the industry that for some reason denies climate change". As for politician I was just joking - I would never put my hands in that dirt, besides I would earn less money and I could not do it due to my values and beliefs - honest and transparent people do not stand a chance in politics (me being honest and transparent if I say so myself), basically it is set-up in a way that one has to be corrupt and slimy to get elected. We don't have different parties, we just have bunch of unaccountable populists basically, so even having ideology is not possible.

GS quality is significantly better than IS300h or IS200 (I am assuming mk1), literally night an day difference. I guess depends what you consider to be "quality", but from my experience where IS300h (mk3 in general) was significant step DOWN from IS250 (and mk2 in general), then GS mk4 was better quality than GS mk3, which was already better quality than IS from same period. So putting them in line of "quality" from worst to best would be something like that ~ CT > IS mk3 and UX > IS mk1 > IS mk2 > GS mk3 and NX > GS mk4 and later model RX > LS/LC.

There is quite a big difference between side of GS and Cygnet... or even UX and Cygnet. Besides quality inside was horrible, basically Aston Martin took basic buy well built Aygo and covered in tacky lather upholstery which was worse quality than original Toyota they based it on. Pains me to say, but perhaps LBX will be the closest to Aygo size and somewhat quality of Lexus, although if UX quality does not impress you then LBX is probably worse. Honda e for example is excellent quality for it's sub-compact segment, but even compared to UX it isn't as good. Particularly you are in difficult situation because GS mk4 was one of the best built cars of all times, small cars don't usually come built to that level of quality, or rather - never come in the level of quality.

Funny enough - yeah it is likely they will be cheaper than transporters used for delivery of potatoes, just because transporters are being usually converted so there is certain group of people looking out for them, whereas LM may go under the radar as quite unusual choice...

That is fine with me either way. Perhaps I should consider political career - already have the adopted their way of speaking anyway 😄

It is not common issue, because IS250 not commonly come with DVD players in headrests 🙂 Most likely it will be issue with signal, the best way would be to contact the place that does AV, like speaker, amplifiers place and they can check. Basically this is not standard Lexus thing, so I don't believe knowledge for this would exit on Lexus forum it is more like car AV area.

Isn't it better to start from Transporter van then?

I like hyperbole sometimes, perhaps I should put "hyperbole warning" next time, but to be fair that should be just added to ever comment I make. In principle I don't mind even if you critical of me - this is just the way I speak (often in hyperbole), people get used to that, that doesn't mean that I am right doing it, nor that I am planning to change, some here cannot stand me so much that they chosen to ignore me altogether, don't mind that either 🙂 Context for my statement - when argument get's political, and it "always" get's political when facts are missing, and then it becomes us and them argument. In Europe we have less of that, but for example in US all argument about everything between democrats and republicans get's to that point (gun control, birth control, education, healthcare... you name it). I think Climate argument we having here in UK is also reaching that point - liberals and ecomentalists do not care about any stats and the opposing side does not care about their feelings (not sure how to define "opposite" to ecomentalist - climate deniers, realists, people like me, meat eaters, normal people?!). Could you identify anyone who is in that "climate industry"?

That it is much nicer car and it is SE-L as well. I am still not sure I would pay £10k just for low miles but in comparison it is much more interesting proposition.

That is exactly what is going to happen... I mean if it is coming to UK then there will be at least like 100 of them in the country. And they will absolutelly sink in value, there is no sort of second hand desire from them, they are basically a single purpose things and once that purpose is served they are worthless. That is the same reason why stretched limousines are worthless when used. As for why it is priced as it is - I am not sure what Lexus have missed, but their priced it with the prices that are acceptable in Southern-Asia as they simply do not look into the cars same as we do. It is like Americans with pick-ups and Australians with "utes"... we will never get why MPV is luxurious, but the yare regarded as such in that region. But the key point - NOT in UK... so it is just madness to bring that model here or expect it to sell for LS money.

This always happens when instead of trying to find objective truth people are following narrative which benefits them most or simply are ignorant and allows other to set the narrative. I am not sure what is the counter narrative at the moment, but if there is one then it is clearly losing, because mainstream narrative is still that "we must do something right now or and ban petrol cars because otherwise we will drown by the end of tomorrow... or the day after". I suppose that would be so called "climate change deniers" and I am sure I would be bunched together with them in debate with salads and potato heads, but matter of the fact I do not deny climate change, I just can't see how banning personal transportation and making society more commun....socialist is the solution?!

I have said myself that human caused emissions are majority of excess, so I don't think we disagree here. However, I as well said that whatever policies are in place does not seem to address human made emissions and rather just focuses on few areas which are both most profitable/easily exploited by taxation and least important in overall climate change picture. Besides the goals set to us goes beyond just human emissions so it seems like they were set to fail (and I think we should question why?). So I think we both agree that climate change is happening and human activity is contributing to it, we disagree about impact and cost of it, but to be fair I also agree with Rowley that we can both be wrong, or both be right, it is just to hard to put the price tag on it when climate isn't exact scienience (at least not yet). The only thing I am saying here - the price we currently paying isn't worth it, because we addressing wrong issues and in wrong way, because we are misled by our rulers about what needs to be done about it, because they themselves don't understand either because of ignorance or malice. This is quite evident and I don't mind repeating the examples of where it is quite obvious... like starting from personal transportation which is minor contributor, but ignoring big industry which contributes the most, is just one of them. Finally, this was exactly intention of this whole debate - "focusing their energies against greed and corruption", except I see current argument about climate change being part of "greed and corruption" rather than separate topic. Basically, why I am saying - greed and corruption nowadays are masquerading as "virtuous saviours of the planet". And don't worry about me, I like good debate myself and sometimes to get to the bottom of it requires touching on various subjects.

I guess LS/LC I can understand... they have to be there for branding... it is like 911 for Porsche... sure they sell 10 times more Cayennes and Macans, but without 911 Porsche is not Porsche. But why LM?! One - they don't need it, Two - it won't sell, Three - they have not brought much more desirable models on the excuse they won't sell despite the fact they would sell at least more than LM... sure IS350 won't sell 1000s, but it would sell 250 cars a year, RC probably more... in general latest gen IS if released 2 years ago when they introduced it in US would have sold easily a 1000+ cars across the range in first year alone, I assume most would be 300h and that is fine, but nobody would hurt from having 100 odd IS500 in UK. So yes that is not ridiculous numbers, say 1000 first year, 500 second year and then sliding scale.. say 3500 cars per model run. Still that would be like 10 times more than LM will sell.