Linas.P

I would probably just say - Standard Lexus audio system is already about as good as it gets. Well above the standard of the class (comparing with 3-series and c-class which I had in between my various IS250's). ML is nice, but I would not call it "day and night" difference if at all. There are obviously will be "fanatics" who will try to prove that that minor note or vibe made all the difference and is worth 3k, but I am not convinced. I guess the best option would be to go to Lexus pretend you interested in the car with ML and listen for yourself if it is really that different "for you" and hence worth all the struggle retrofitting.

as for cream interiour - I would be the person preferring cream over back for NEW car, but for 8 year (or possibly 11 now) it would be nearly impossible to find example with unmarked interior.

I won't believe it unless I see them in person. Good example is my car - on the paper it looked too good for the asking price, but I have knocked another £500 off when viewed it and to be honest still fee like I might have made a mistake. The reason... it basically needs respray - all car is covered is tiny stone chips and not all of them are touched up well (or at all). I won't be able to tell when passing by or even standing 2 metres away, but the car needs full respray .. there is not a single panel unmarked. I must admit, I might have missed 7k bit, but 6k was too low. As for interiour - there will always be exceptions, I stated that as general thing, additionally - personal experience. All IS'es I have seen with cream or grey interiors looked crap.

My point is that - it doesn't seems like there is huge premium when you looking for used cars. It is possible to find run down 250 MTs (or even more 220d) with ML for the price which is less than ML it self has costed when new ( I am referring to those cars listed at £2.4k :D). Nav add to the cost... maybe ML does as well, but the main thing is actually still- mileage, AT/MT and the overall condition. I don't have ML, nor Nav now, but I used to have ML in my F-Sport and, Nav in my AWD.

This... I have used and will use only aux. Previously, have used usb (as my previous IS had it), but still only listened to .mp3 songs (e.g. youtube rips). That said you could probably benefit from ML if you have large collection of great quality CDs. But if you (like many) listen to .mp3 then do not bother.

Hey. Just following other threads you made I am curious - Are you saying you found an F-Sport which was only made after 2010 in the price range of 6k? My feeling is that you refering to SR? Unless it is F-Sport 220d, but as you looking for 250 AT, I wouldn't assume that. P.S. I used to have F-Sport which had all leather interior, but I guess UK f-sports were limited to half-leather combo (mine was EU).

I am not sure ML counts in used cars - rather nice to have. But I fully agree that the list sound like ~9k ish car for me from the description. He could get MT, or high miles, or very basic for 6k. But not AT, low miles and high spec. that will never comes as low all together. What helps for this search - he doesn't want Black.. which is second most expensive colour after White. I personally paid extra to get Black with Black interior, if only mine have sunroof (or moon roof as it is called by Lexus), it would be perfect combo for me. It is just my personal opinion, but Lexus Dark Grey is rather Dirty Black. The normal Grey is so common that it is boring. I would say both comes reasonably cheaper. Second point, light colour interior for 8+ years car is bad choice. I believe it is nice to have cream when it is new, but for used cars is Back and Back only which looks reasonably fresh. Other options are only light Grey or Cream which will always have marks and stains. As well cloth interiors are manual only( or I am missing something?!)

I am not sure about a matter of fitting everything, but I can clearly state that the difference between ML and "standard" sound system is not worth any struggle. I originally had F-Sport (2012) with ML, then AWD (2010) with standard system, and when my Lexus service gave me IS Luxury as courtesy car (kind of equivalent to SE-L) with ML - I could not hear any difference at all. My current IS is non-ML (at least I assume), because there is no ML marking anywhere (but there is amp in the back?!). I guess ML systems are better if you listening at maximum level (65 on mine), but for normal (I have levels between 20-45) you will probably never hear the difference. If you finally want to have some extra sound, it will alway be easier to add sub in the boot.

It is funny, but is actually true - Dunlop is subsidiary of Goodyear. Not only they arch rivals in the market, but as well Dunlop usually have better tires for more reasonable prices (impossible to explain by any logic). Overall, Dunlop is one of the best tires "on paper". When it comes to RT vs. TT. TT are grippier tyres especially on dry, hence fuel consumption and noise. To be honest those Fuel ratings are "paper only" thing. Manufacturers put them because they have to (EU law), the real life difference is very small. Previously, I had SportMaxx (not TT/RT/GT - that is old discontinued model) with "F/G" fuel rating and recently replaced them with SportMaxx RT, which are "C" fuel rating. There were no difference whatsoever in fuel consumption... until.. I filled them with nitrogen and asked guys to increase pressure. Pressure increase made ride harder (some would say less comfortable, but I don't mind) and improved fuel consumption by probably up to 10%, especially on motorways. Same goes for noise rating. I haven't noticed any difference even though previous tyres were rated at 72dB and new ones at 67dB. Maybe if you drive with windows down you can hear the difference, but inside of Lexus IS there is no difference - I believe this is one to ignore. As for rim protection RT and TT are the same, they come with MFS (Maximum Flange Shield), which is not really kerb protection. Even though Dunlop states otherwise: "Benefits Protects expensive alloy wheels from kerbing. * Only available in select sizes" MFS is more like additional rubber barrier inside of the tire so that it would protect against potholes. As for the kerbs there is very little "skirt" which doesn't protect much. It would protect the rim if you hit the kerb straight on, but not when you scratch against it one the side when parking. Honestly, I never had any tire which had sufficient kerb protection (please let me know if you know such brand). Even the old SportMaxx had like a rubber ring around the rim edge, but kerb would burst it straight through even at low speed.. so not only you damage alloy, you as well have pieces of rubber sticking from the sides.

Maybe just that particular IS220d then... Cannot argue with that. I think the main reason I am advocating here for AT is that the it was clearly said it is for short journeys....rather than long cruises on motorway. That doesn't make 250MT bad car, nor even 220/200d (even thought for my personal preference they have too weak engine for relatively heavy car and no AT option).

I am not sure if the misunderstanding comes from my english being not good enough or something else... Let's park it here saying that the MT/AT thing is personal preference. There are cars were I prefer MT e.g. I was always astounded to see Subaru Impreza WRX with AT, or Nissan 300ZX, or Toyota Supra with AT. I personally believe, that AT cars were historically associated with expensive maintenance and bad fuel economy. As this not the case in IS250 and the car itself not being very hardcore sports car - the AT became favorite choice of many drivers. I woudl say "added luxury and comfort" at no extra cost. I think that is not very surprising, simply car doesn't have enough power in longer/steeper uphill driving at 70mph@6th gear (and in my experience 80). It starts slowing down until it reaches like 60 and very low rpm and the ride comes very uncomfortable and it makes you to change down to 5th. That actually happens to my IS250 AT, it is just that the AT box changes the gear when it thinks there is not enough torque and you don't feel anything. On manual you actually need to intercept that moment by quickly changing down before it (almost) chokes-up.

That is the best example of what I meant :D - thanks for sharing. The funny thing, there are many people who actually only drive their cars like that. And make conclusions - "DPF is crap"! so they "delete" it and continue driving this way. This is because some older cars allowed this driving "style" before DPF were invented (or enforced), hence creating "super economical diesel myth". Then you can clearly see who they are, when they pull from junction and leaves everyone in thick black smoke. It is true that it makes good MPG this way, but is so terribly smoking and polluting environment.

You are right, this is not very clear- I guess that is the problem with long posts. - Will edit it to make more sense there. I guess it depends how much you drive - if not much maybe once a month for 15 min will be enough.

Are you saying, that the gearbox itself is different in 250? (this might be the case - I have really just assumed they are the same all the time). Yes I have seen the IS250 auto box, that is what I have said - if one ever go wrong that will be huge expense - they simply don't go wrong (yet). And while they don't they actually requires less maintenance.

Sorry for long log response, but the above was what I was actually trying to say. My point - trying to deliberately be below turbo range, to save the fuel will cause issues. Point 2 - depends what you mean "once in awhile" - if that is like 1 day from 5. Then yes. If DPF is already fully clogged, nothing but replacement will help. I never said you need to replace turbo every 5 years - surely they can do and will do more than that if you let them spin. Driving below turbo range will clog DPF which is actually in most cases located just after turbo exhaust outlet (that is because it needs high temperatures to burn the residues of diesel particles). That means that after DPF is clogged the Turbo exhaust outlet will soon be blocked as well. I have personally seen the turbos which are clogged to the level where they no longer spins - this is because blocked DPF creates "negative pressure" (not sure is that is correct term, but I hope you get what I mean) and basically start pumping all crap back to the engine. So the conclusion - let your turbo spin, say in turbo range and you will have no problems with turbo not DPF.

AC not only should be on All-Year round, but it actually must. Steaming windows are just a little problem in comparison with replacing whole AC unit as it gets damaged when unused for long time. That would cost up to £1000 (or 20+ years of average saving on fuel) to repair. Have anyone actually have a figure what is MPG difference with AC on and off? I am sure that is like in a range of 0.1-0.5 MPG (there are some speculations that it could be up to 5%, but that is maybe for small engine and light cars, definitely not for relatively heavy IS.. I believe it woudl be far less than 1% from overall consumption) . Obviously, there are many things to suggest, but the easiest and cheapest as well would be simply... well turn on the AC! Few examples: You can buy sponges or containers which absorbs the humidity ~£7-19. You can leave your car engine ON after driving and heat the car for 15 mins, then open the windows and doors to ventilate it and the remove humidity this way (you woudl spend like £0.50 each time on idle fuel consumption). You can open windows when driving, but remember that in speeds excess of 40mph the air drag will consume more fuel than the AC. Regularly disinfect your ventilation/AC ~ £20 as you can see there are options, but not only they going to cost you more, they will be more time consuming and inconvenient. Let's assume the AC uses the whopping 0.5MPG - that would cost you a year maybe ~ £50 (in case of lexus this is surely going to be less). Buying several absorbing containers and constantly keeping you car well heated and ventilated, not only going to cost more, but as well going to be significantly more inconvenient. And all that assuming that your AC will not go wrong. As well by not using your AC you are letting for germs to grow in the condensations tank and that not only stinks when you finally use your AC, but can as well cause severe diseases.

Maybe I am wrong, but the actual manual gearbox is the same on 250 and 220/200. Obviously, 250 manual is going to be more joy to drive than 220/200, but not going to be more reliable etc. We need to establish one fact - there are no BAD Lexus cars, just some are better than others e.g. 250 is clearly better than 220/200, and makes much more sense in any aspect. It doesn't mean that 220/200 is bad car. I am sure that manual BWM 320d, MB C200d and Audi A4 2.0td are very similar cars ... well the least they all not very nice to drive, Lexus at least have the best built quality and best materials from others, thought (for unknown reason) they decided not to pair IS220/200 with automatic gearbox. Back on the topic of 250 MT vs. AT. I never said MT is unreliable, but for fact AT is actually cheaper to maintain. To start with, AT has no issues with the clutch changes (and other related parts), no need of oil change (though is being done as well, but less important than MT). True - if you manage to destroy AT it will cost more to replace than MT, but it happens so rarely that overall Lexus owners are spending less of AT, than on MT. True - IS (2gen) is fairly new car (maximum 10 years), not many of them have covered more than 200k and hence it is within AT reliability range. Maybe in 10 years time the MT will prove that they are more reliable than AT (especially when cars will start reaching 200k, 300k), but in current day to day costs they are less expensive to maintain. AT are usually less stressed, because ... well you know - not everyone uses the clutch right. This is particularly important for used cars. Majority of ATs are actually in better shape. So what I am saying is not that MT is the one to avoid, but that for casual driving, short distances, city and for more comfort the AT is better. Even more it is cheaper to tax, and requires less regular maintenance (fluids, clutches) and even more it is less what can go wrong with them (like premature wear and ther of gearbox parts).

This actually makes sense and is completely correct, because in majority of Europe and Japan the speed allowed is 130 km/h or 81 mph. So when driving 70 mph you are really reaching the speed for 6th (overdrive) gear. Similarly, in US (the major market) the majority of the roads are limited ~60 mph and historically were limited at 55/65mph (until 1995). Even currently there are just certain extra urban "freeways" where you can drive up to 85 mph, but is not like common. So tactically the gear ratios are correct for Lexus major markets EU/Japan -6th, US -5th. It is only UK (sadly) where the majority of the motorways(and other roads) are limited to 70 mph. I personally, believe this is more of the UK issue than Lexus - theres is no real reason why speed limit cannot be lifted to say 90 mph - but that is different topic. True - Lexus could adapt gear rations to UK, but they didn't (probably because it is minor market). Actually, I am quite happy they didn't as most of the time I am .... (well you know what) :). Not only the 17 inch are bigger, but I guess the tires are wider (should be wider). And the tires are actually bigger contributor to fuel economy, wider tires are obviously grippier and hence have larger rolling resistance. The rim size would matter more in acceleration, and would unlikely to contribute to fuel consumption while driving at steady speed on motorway. Depending on the speed and rpm of the engine bigger rims might even have better fuel economy (if not the tires). Other important thing I would like to note - yes turbo probably affects the fuel economy (didn't have IS220d long enough to have opinion on that), but it actually makes the fuel to burn more efficiently. Essentially, what I am trying to say - driving the diesel car on RPM which is below Turbo range will impact the reliability, not only you are risking to block DPF, but as well turbo itself. So it is better for a car and for the engine to actually be in the turbo range. Finally, this is really cost vs. benefit. If you drive relatively low miles (under 25k/a) then you better off staying in turbo range - the fuel saved will not cover maintenance costs. If you doing a lot of miles (e.g. company car, which is unlikely to be Lexus IS) then maybe it is actually worth to save money stis way - yes after 60k miles you will have to replace DPF and the Turbine (and maybe other pieces ... like the whole engine :D), but the fuel saving will work out better than maintenance. Though, I am unsure if that saves money (unless you sell the car just before breakdown), here are my calculations: 12000 annual (that is about average for private cars): at 45MPG it will cost you: £1188 at 55MPG it will cost you: £962 worse case scenario - you will have to replace turbo after 5 years (£1500-3000) and DPF (maybe twice £1200) ~£3500+ you're saving on fuel 5 years £1132 Obviously, you can have best of both - if you do maybe one day driving in 5th to flush the turbo and partially DPF, then you can still save money. Note: Above calculation is just part of the whole story. I am sure there are many permutations I didn't consider here and it is very complex matter. E.g. you might crash the car in 5 years or sell it, finally DPF are getting blocked anyway and even driving perfectly (in terms for DPF) you will still need to replace it sooner or later. Personally, I did all these calculations and therefore I have IS250 (and generally petrol cars). It makes sense for the high mileage company car to have diesel (which does maybe 60k annual), but not for personal use. You are better of if you can drive it on motorway, but especially in the city is more of the trouble than benefit. Furthermore, used diesel cars are bad investment, because they are likely have covered many miles and have DPF and Turbo partially blocked. To conclude any saving on fuel on diesel cars are contributing to spending on the maintenance, hence it only makes sense where you saving is greater than spending, and for diesel cars there are only few specific cases where it is the case.

I have never driven IS250 manual, but have driven 220d manual (obviously) and all my cars before IS250 were manual without exceptions. For me personally, the manual should normally be the choice for reliability, better fuel economy, lower maintenance costs and lower tax. As I personally have no issues using clutch or manual I would in many cases actually prefer to have a manual car, BUT: for all modern cars fuel economy on auto is no longer an issue (unless you are manual/clutch master and somehow can magically save the fuel), in case of IS250 automatic as well is more reliable and therefore cheaper to maintain, finally, even more cheaper to tax. It is not like manual is very bad on Lexus IS250, but Auto is definitely better - more comfortable, reliable, cheaper to maintain and to tax. If I would live somewhere outside of the city, I probably would consider manual as well, but for short drive in London in congested areas automatic all the way. P.S. When I tried 220d manual on motorway it was unable to keep steady 70, nor 80 MPH on autopilot and I had to shift down to keep it going uphill, which kind of defeats the point of autopilot on motorway. I guess this is not the case for 250 as it has more power, but would be interesting to know how that works.

I don't have much more to say except to agree - 250 auto is the way to go ( I had 3 myself and they all were excellent)! As for 250 vs. 220/200d - I believe it is not the 220/200d being terrible, but rather 250 being so brilliant which makes that whoooooping gap. Recently drove my friends BMW 320d manual... and it feels the same if not worse than 220d. Again that is more of the bad combination of gearbox and diesel engine in 220/200d. Another important thing is that people are using it in the city for short journeys where it must not be ever used! I believe that generally people who use this car for motorway driving don't have much issues at all.

Yes. Would agree "quieter" tyres alone doesn't make a quiet ride. That is leads me to another point I forgot to mention. All R18 RT's (not sure about others) are "XL" or "extra loads" (reinforced walls). Mine R17s are not and I was actually looking for ones particularly without reinforcement. This is because XL's rides similarly as "run on flats" and give you terrible hard ride. Which actually means more vibration inside and consequently more noise. Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk

No it is exactly same in terms of noise. My old SP's were 68db, so not expecting much, but I guess they better then some cheap ones with 74db. I can add pictures of how they looks fitted tomorrow, nothing amazing in terms of rim protection. I would personally pic RT's for more economy and TT/GT's for more grip on dry.. guess because of climate in UK I have gone for RT's. Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk

Sorry for reviving this old topic. They don't have name, but part number is 74217 / 74218.

Sorry for reviving this old topic. They don't have name, but part number is 74217 / 74218.

Hello Jack, Just fitted my fronts with Dunlop SP RT's. They all have MFS by default (or at least majority), which meant to protect the rim from kerbing, however from my experience there are hardly any tyres which does that. Definitely, not Dunlops - previous I have Dunlop SP's (not RT, TT or GT) with rim protection, it helps maybe on very gentle hits when parking slowly, but if bus gone wild (happens about twice a week to me) in narrow London's street and you made choice to "kerb" instead of writing-off you car to the bus... no rim protections wouldn't help. As I said, had a tires with quite pronounced "lip" and still got my rims "kerbed", lips got even "chewed" in places. Option 2 - drive super carefully and slow...