Linas.P

lol - we said it at the same time... As for WHP over crank, that is why I asked the question and that is why I said what I said above about using dyno overall. One just can't compare the figures, unless both cars go onto the same dyno at the same time... but then one can't compare auto to manual either. I only looked at the picture now and can see 148WHP.. that said it says MT for the car, so adjustment may be wrong and who knows if atmospheric pressure is what it was. So it is kind of "fun activity", but unless it is being used to track the upgrades impact it is pretty meaningless in itself.

A/C would not contribute much ~2-5hp, heated seat probably no perceptible difference at all.

That is where claims management companies works quite well - because they would not care what TP insurance is saying, they just get your car and damage valued (importantly with your input). E.g. on my second accident in 2016 the insurance company estimated my then 157k miles IS250 SEL to be worth £2860 and damage to be worth ~£3500, so a total loss, cat-B basically. Instead, I went to claim management company which basically turn the numbers around - ~£3300 for the car and ~£2800 to repair, importantly setting residual value of just £571, meaning that if I were to buy it back that is only as much as I needed to pay. Because at the time I was not happy to get car written-off and £3300 still could not buy me comparable car I insisted on either pricing the car at £4800 or car being repaired and got my own quote for repairs, which totalled £1800, for painting bumper, front fended, refurbishing all wheels and replacing all tyres. So £4800 value and £1800 repair was the proposal claims management company brought forward to insurance and the settled right away for repairs. My third crash wen more or less the same, but economics of it were different. First of all my car already had 192k at the time, I didn't even bother with insurance valuation, but claims management company right away valued it at £3700, which was way more than it was worth and estimated ~£2800 for repairs again. This time I was more than happy to take £2800 and buy the car back, because it only had literally scratch on the bumper and no actual repairs were need, sure I have kerbed the wheels, but they were already kerbed anyway (naughty I know)... the only downside being ~£800 buy back price. So I got my car back and £2000 in cash and then sold it for £2800 with Cat-N. I guess my point is - you stand no chance negotiating with insurance companies as you have no leverage, but if you get claims management company then you have all leverage you need. And insurance was on time bomb when it comes to hire car... because you see, I had no hire car cover on my policy, so my insurance would have given me some sort of Yaris or Polo... but claims management company does not care, their policy was to provide like for like hire car for all non-fault claims. So they got me £300/day brand new BWM 330i (literally 3 month old with 5000 miles on it). So every day insurance company delayed the decision it costed them £300. No wonder they settled right away!

I would just remind that dyno number is basically meaningless, unless used for before and after modifications. Simply because I could make any car to do almost any power on dyno... adjust temperature compensation, let some air out of the tyres, adjust loses too much and our little IS250 is making 300HP in no time... that means absolutely nothing and for example loses adjustment is completely arbitrary and it is done based on "experience". So for manual box some shops tends to add 10% and auto 20%, but those number are literally just guess, some autos will lose less than manual when locked-up, so go figure! Starting from basics - all engine power on all production cars since basically forever, since dynos were used probably are stated in HP at the crank (measured with engine dyno on the stand), the dyno used on the wheels obviously measures WHP, so figure will always be lower from what it had in the factory by ~5-30%. As I said most dyno places "adjust" it, but because each model, and each individual car, and even the same car in different weather gets different results, there is no way to get 100% correct reading. For that reason most dynos auto adjust for things like temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure, or if they don't do it automatically then operator should enter correct measures, but that is where you can adjust dyno to show ridiculous power if you want. The loss compensation is literally a field where you enter how much % is lost, if somebody is fooling around with that they can simply enter 100% and suddenly IS250 is making 400HP. So for that reason I said 184WHP is very good for IS250, if we assume about 10% transmission loses we getting bang on 202.4HP at the crank. But that is why I am asking what were the settings, because if that is 184HP after say 15% adjustment, then it would be very low to the point of broken. In short the dyno is useless when comparing two different cars on two different days, on two different dynos. What it is useful for is getting you car on the dyno before fitting air intake, exhaust or whatever other mod to get baseline and then getting it on the same dyno, with the same settings/conditions after the mod... and if the mod added 15WHP, then likely car makes true 15WHP more. Or obviously dynos are very useful for live tuning of ECU, because then you can get confirmation of tuning literally live and adjust as needed. Hence I only accept chip tuning claims that are made on the car and on the dyno, anything that is sent over the post without having the car on dyno is pretty much useless and either does not deliver the power or could outright blow the car to bits.

At very least transition to it, but they kind of figured that out now, so they must have found the way to keep the joins as they suppose to be without lead. Because most of the issues were related to very early ML/Lexus collaborations... after ~2005 amps have improved significantly and new ones are not known to fail (at least not as often). So my theory would go as such - ML was high-end home audio company, so they made excellent quality products, however they were fragile... and in the cars they simple shaken themselves to bits on early models. Later ML either figured it out, or perhaps they were told how to do it better by their parents Samsung/Harman. As well, most of early ML systems were horribly overcomplicated and amp isn't really just an amp, it is master for all things audio and if any of 100 functions of it fails then the whole unit fails and people just used to assume it is amp that goes. Whereas on new cars ML amp is just an amp and head unit has taken over most of other functions.

Well ... I hope that to be the case considering how much it costs. But most of delays on insurance is usually caused by negotiations, or by trying to figure out whose fault it was. Once party at fault is agreed and damage is agreed, things usually move quickly. So if in your case there was no contest who was at fault and how much it will cost to repair that moved quickly. Now it is bizarre that TP insurance sent a letter to you - what they expect you to do?! If your insurance does not want to settle they have to take insurance to court not you, it is only in cases where somebody is uninsured they can go after the person, but you were insured so all should be dealt by insurance. I would say this is almost not a fault of your insurance (in terms of contacting you), the TP insurance should answer why they felt it was appropriate to even contact you. It is strange how people do not know who is at fault or fight to death to claim they are not at fault when they are. 3 out of 3 accidents that I had, other party contested it and said it was my fault, dashcam footage was very handy indeed, but since my first accident I have moved over to using claims management companies rather than insurance itself and there are many benefits of doing that. My first case took nearly 6 months to settle, my other two were settled within 2 weeks, just because of claims management company "pre-approving" it (meaning they consider it 100% non-fault and they pay it out before they even get the money from TP insurance and then they sue them or whatever is required to recover the cost). Now sadly - claim management companies only deals with 100% non-fault, if you are at fault some of them don't even look at it, and some other charge ridiculous fees.

One of the key arguments of people in US states where tint is legal on all windows is that it protects car from thief i.e. "people don't steal what they can't see" and it is unlikely that somebody would smash the window just to find out if there is anything to take. I am sure if you have declared the PPF and ceramic coating you would have paid more for insurance - yet I doubt they would agree to pay for refitting it... Isn't that funny?

I would say - you can't really "prevent" it from failing e.g. I don't think "just not listening music too loud" is viable, because what is the point of ML then?! But the IS mk2 amps seems to be better and don't fail by themselves, unlike GS mk3 or older LS or specifically SC430 where ML amps were failing internally. Instead on IS mk2 they seem to fail because of two reasons - they either get hot or wet and there are few things one can do reduce the risk of that happening. And just to be clear IS mk2 ML amp issue is not that bad, ML subs do fail and that is common, but AMPs are actually alright... apart of being fitted in stupid place and susceptible to getting wet or hot. So to prevent them from getting wet, just make sure your boot seals do not leak, as well do not store any liquids above the amps in the boot (that is right side of the boot), then it would be good to check if the went at the bottom is not clogged. As for not getting them hot, I have theory that the reason amps overheat is because their fans fail, so as little preventative maintenance I don't think it would hurt to vacuum the area around the amp and the fan inlet, to make sure it is not clogged and there is no excessive amount of dust and crap to be sucked into the amp (being bottom of the boot it could get dirty).

I think those are very good results, but depends on how it was adjusted for loses? Because 204 was at the crank... As well what fuel you had in the car? Besides you would expect some loses over 114k miles, I guess if you did engine overhaul, replace oils, fluids, spark plugs, all the ancillaries etc. then it would be similar to what it was, but otherwise I think good results.

That is my take on it as well. Unless modification is increasing performance of the car the declaration is simply to protect insurance interest in case you decide to claim it on the policy. Because there is difference between insuring IS250 that costs £4000 and the one that has £4000 worth of wheels on it. So if not declared and those wheels get stolen, then don't expect insurance company to pay for them, or if the car is heavily modified (say show car) then don't expect insurance to modify it to the same level. In case of total loss you just getting market value based on year mileage and model of your car, nothing more and nothing less... unless it is agreed value policy, in which case one would get agreed value. Now again - I recommend reading the contract you are signing and if needed consult with legal experts (not on the forum), but when I declare mods on insurance my point of view is such - does the item changes car performance (for better or worse)? If yes then it is a mod and has to be declared and does the item increases car value, or is expensive itself, and if I want it to be covered. If I want it to be covered then I will declare it and I will fight with insurance company to cover it, in the end of the day they hiked my price and mods were listed, they have to pay. Or if I don't want that mode to be covered then I will not list it and I accept that it is not covered and will be lost. Practical example - F-Sport wheels are worth ~£800-£1200, my IS250 at the time was worth maybe £2500. I did not declare them as a mod and if car was stolen I would not expect them to be covered. When car got written-off I simply took those wheels of the car. Now to make it more "spicy", I suspect the car was written of primely because of the wheels, basically when other guy crashed into me I hit the kerb and it was little scratch on the bumper and right front wheel from his car + both left side wheels kerbed. I can't imagine insurance written the car off for the bumper, but in my claim I said I want all wheels to be refurbished (because 3 out of 4 were scratched) and I want front tyres replaced, because left front sidewall was ripped as result of hitting the kerb. So if they had no issue with that - I doubt they would ever have issue with much more subtle things like painted calipers or brake pads.

Some have said that insurance companies where not happy with performance pads (specifically EBC Yellowstuff/Redstuff), but again I just can't see how they would be able to argue that case. The pads are listed with the vehicle as compatible, it is not for them to decide what "compatible" means. Sure if the owner themselves decide to fit the pad that is not compatible then they can say this has compromised the safety of the car, but at the same time one would expect the car would not pass MOT. However, if manufacturer states they are compatible, car passes MOT (and is otherwise road legal), then it does not matter what insurance company thinks, they simply have no expertise in car design and thus have no say. Now I am not saying they won't try, but people just need to stick to their "guns" and ignore it. I think the only way these things can cause problems is if the owners themselves are unsure and when asked or challenged agrees they have not declared something. Legal perspective is important here... because there are key words that can invalidate insurance and cause trouble e.g. saying that you forgotten to tell, or that you did it recently and were planning to tell them about it is BAD! You would be basically admitting that you knew it is mod and you invalidate your insurance by not telling. But saying the car was like that when I bought it, or that the part was compatible with the car and it is not modification is fine - because in first instance you stating that basically you could not declare the mod because it is not clear it is a mod (as far as you know that may be original) and in second case you saying it is compatible aftermarket part, it is thus not a mod, does not need to be declared, now it is down to insurance to prove it is a mod, but on top of that that their terms and conditions clearly stated it is a mod, which lets face it is just impossible. What I am saying - think what you say before speaking with insurance and remember that they are waiting for you to make a mistake and admit something. So - know your mods, and know your story. Wheels - they are on the car when I bought it, pads, lines - just compatible stuff, road legal, not a mod, caliper paint - refurbished calipers fitted - no a mod. And always let them enquire first instead of listing everything, because if you list something, then you basically admitting you knew the part isn't what it suppose to be. And as funny as it sound - a lot depends on perspective, if you think something is a mod, but it isn't a mod, but you thought is a mod and you decided not to declare it, then that itself could invalidate insurance on the grounds that you were entering contract on bad faith, even if you wrongly believe it was something you need to declare. I mean I would like to see insurance company trying to invalidate insurance on such grounds, but in theory that is possible, because as well as saying you have to declare mods, policy usually says that it is made in good faith. So just think before saying something and if you don't know then better say nothing. Now to be fair, as mentioned previously - these are hypothetical scenarios raised by people who are overly sensitive and want to over-declare stuff that does not need to be declared. I have dealt with insurance companies quite a bit and they never ask such things and they never check them. There are some anecdotal experiences and stories about them being stupid, but this is very rare.

I had same F-Sport wheels on my mk2 SE-L at the same time when I had golden calipers and car was written-off and that wasn't picked-up either. So I have no doubt you would be fine with that on mk3 and they won't say anything about it, I reckon 99% of insurance inspectors would not even know which Lexus trim had which wheels fitted. Now many years ago when I had those wheels, I called the insurance company not disclosing my name or policy number and asked if that would be considered mod - and they told me "are they original Lexus and/or they are of the same specification/size? YES that is fine, no need to declare". Now sure that is 1 insurance company and 1 person, so hence I always advise to consult the small print your insurance company provides to be safe, but in my experience that would be the case for most of insurance companies. As I said and as well as you said - unless it is spelled out exactly what things the company considers "mods" there is very little that can be proven one way or another. Same as in the article you listed above - the default answer will be "perhaps it was not clear enough what counts as a mod so customer cannot be expected to know". And yes I am sure that if asked the insurance companies will try to shift this responsibility on customer, but they can't... they already operate in grey area and very close to the line of outright fraudulent. And finally, you again right - pleading ignorance works 99% of the time. Unless something is obvious, or unless there is something that would make car unsafe or un-roadworthy (like example of tinted headlights), simply saying "it was there when I bought it" exonerates you. Because there are so many things that could be not original on cars, yet are not considered modification (prime example tyres), that there is no way for everyone to know, or for insurance companies to provide the list, because then they would need to name basically very single part out of 40,000 parts that goes into the car.

Nonsense - simply ignore that. Ain't nobody can tell me painted caliper is mod. What else - refurbished wheels is mod as well, what if I had hole in exhaust and replaced section with stainless steel, is that a mod as well!? Idiotic. Do not declare it as a mod and you won't have issues, and as well don't look for the issues where there are none. I mean sure - if you answer the question "is you car modified" as "yes" and when they ask "what is your modification" you will say it is "brake caliper", then they will assume it is either coated is something very expensive, thus significantly changing the value of the car, or because it was modified there is a risk that your brakes will stop functioning... and thus risk is much higher. So it is either cost or risk that matters, not looks. So the issue stems from your misunderstanding what modification is, or insurance companies incorrectly explaining it to you. Something that does not alter value or performance of your car is not A MOD, end of the story. So when asked "whenever your car is modified in any way" your answer should be NO. In hypothetical scenario where you have an accident, and in hypothetical scenario where they say "we can see your callipers are painted and you have not declared it as a mod" - your answer should be - "they are not painted and it is not a mod"... if the continue to insist "yes but they are red", then you answers is "they were always red, as long as I owned the car, maybe they were refurbished at some point, I don't know, but refurbishment is not mod either - pyppppsss off". Now I am not just spit balling... I had accident, I had my car written-off, I have it inspected and valued by insurance company and by the claims management company, so twice... I had GOLDEN brake callipers and GOLDEN, drilled and slotted discs and there were no comments about it. Conclusion - colour is not a mod! Obviously, if you fitted clearly much much bigger or smaller brakes, like some ridiculous racing spec. 8 piston StopTec or Willwood callipers, then yes - this would be a mod, because those callipers alone are £8000 and that is double the price of the car, so if you turn around and ask insurance company to cover that, they may turn around as say - this was not declared, so it is not covered. Not really that invalidates the cover, it is just not covered in itself. Simple advise - read your insurance contract and provide only as much information as STRITLY required, nothing more! Being economical with truth is the way to go, DO NOT lie, especially where it is very obvious and easy to check, but do not voluntarily tell all there is to know, only as much as strictly mentioned in the contract, and something that cannot be interpreted in any other way. If contract says you have to declare mods, then we can interpret mods any way we like and it is not breach of contract. Only provable lies could invalidate the contract. Now if they strictly ask the question "what colour is your calipers and is this original colour", sure - then you have to say "they are red and it is NOT original colour", but I am yet to see such contract where this is being asked. However, if this is not being asked, then you don't need to tell them that. I can as well use following analogy - imagine coming to police officer and asking "what is considered to be a weapon? would the knife be a weapon? how long - 5" inches? what about pipe? what about broken bottle? a wrench? ahh okey - so you saying wrench is okey?" What do you expect to happen? Surely, you would be arrested just on suspicion alone, whereas what actually happened is simply that you had a barbeque and you had small pocket knife to cut the sausages and that is it. Police officer probably didn't even care about it and even if he would have asked why you have a knife, the explanation that you preparing for barbeque and probably obvious evidence that you have grill on fire and getting hot would be sufficient explanation. So do not create problems by asking questions that could be misunderstood and then used against you.

The GS mk4 has more room anyway and sunroof does not rob as much space than it did on GS mk3, because in GSmk4 the roof comes out when opening, whereas in GS mk3 it goes inside. But indeed you might be right - if it is tall driver in mk3 with sunroof, that may have something to do with headroom.

Just goes to show the same thing I am banging about for a while now - Toyota moves more and more up-market and Lexus keeps adding smaller and smaller cars into line-up almost becoming just a Toyota trim. And this Venza - well it is clearly a Lexus, even the interior details looks like take out of NX/RX, seat design etc. So it almost seems like Toyota competes with Lexus itself. Toyota pricing does not make sense, Lexus pricing does not make sense, options in neither cars make sense, there is no longer clear separation between the brands and they basically overlap. Other example would be Toyota Mirai... why Toyota?! Clearly it would be easier to market Lexus with hydrogen cell, because Hydrogen Lexus GS for £60k+ would be considered cheap, if they put it in RX (which by the way shares platform) that would be steal, but Toyota saloon for £60k makes no sense... My explanation - Lexus failed as a brand worldwide, it sort of works in US, but apart of that Toyota is just as recognisable and just as valued, so whereas in 80s and 90s Toyota had badge issue and needed Lexus to justify the cost... nowadays Toyota no longer has badge issue and Lexus brand is just becoming redundant, so Toyota just doesn't fell the need to keep artificial separation between options... and as soon as MB or BMW owners start buying Toyotas, there will be no Lexus. Now in principle I don't care, who cares what they are called, but make no mistake - this is not done for consumer benefit. Before you could get cheap and basic Toyota, or little bit more expensive Toyota with Lexus badge which was LOADED. Now the only choice is AVERAGE Toyota for BMW money.

OBD adapter will kill your battery, whereas "hardwire" kit usually has battery protector. On top of that OBD fuse is generally not mean to be used for continuous power and could blow... if you just using basic front facing camera, then unlikely, but if it is "high resolution", "night vision" or multi camera set-up then it would definitely blow the fuse eventually. If you still don't want to hardwire, then consider the plug into accessory socket (aka cigarette socket), at least that had ~120W available without risk of blowing the fuse.

I think it would be better to look at it as attached "to the policy", so it is neither driver nor a car. As well you can't build NCB on separate policies at the same time e.g. if you were to insure 5 cars for 1 year with different providers, at the end of the year that doesn't mean you have 5 years NCB... it means you have 5 policies with 1 year of NCB each. So in general you can have multiple NCB accumulated on different policies if you had them in parallel, but they should not overlap. Although I have done it for just couple of months overlap, basically I had 3 years on one policy and then started separate policy 2 month before first one ended (because that company could not insure me) and when it came for renewal on second policy I asked to combine my now 4 years on previous policy and 1 that I got with new policy for total 5 years. As well in theory you can "seed" 2 policies from same NCB e.g. if you had 5 year NCB on one policy and then go to insure with different company you can say you have 5 years NCB (because you will be able to prove it with NCB letter), then if 6 months later you buy different car and use completely different company on separate policy (this could happen if company you already using refuses to insure the car or just gives stupid quote), then you can use same NCB with different company and have 5 years discount on both. NCB protection and accident reporting is whole separate minefield, so I don't even want to start that topic. But yes - most simply NCB is gained "on policy" and expectation is that you should not have multiple parallel policies at the same time, else only one of them counts, but you can choose which one... so obviously you should choose the one with longest NCB. I guess it kind of makes sense, if we accept that insurance in UK doesn't make sense to begin with... why is it the drive that is insured and not a car like in any normal country?! Why does for home insurance you insure the home and not the occupant, but for the car somehow that is the driver that needs insurance, yet the driver who does have insurance can't drive any car either...

Combination fuse > all the fuses > all the wiring > all the ECUs - roughly in that sort of sequence. Now on positive side - most likely one of the fuses have blown and protected ECUs/wiring and you just need to find which one, but that is about 50/50% chance when the battery itself was shorted. Because when you short something "down the wire", you will short only one particular part e.g. if you short headlights wire, then the damage will be just to headlight wiring and most likely just going to blow headlights fuse. But when you short the main battery terminals, you basically short ALL the systems at once, so instead of say having one 10, 15, 20 or 30A fuse, you may have 1000A combined across few dozens of fuses and something may burn before the fuses pop. So positive 50% - you will fine few blown fuses, negative 50% you burned something and now it will be needle in the haystack (quite literally) to find what it was. Could well be beyond revival... I was working on IS250 which I suspect was jumped incorrectly for over a year and still trying catch last of the buggers out of it. Trust me - shorting Lexus is definitely the last thing you want to do. It would be less painful to pour petrol over it and set it on fire - at least the damage would be visible. very optimistic 🙂 I honestly wish that to be enough.

I found that depending on the car I had I was treated differently... 160k+ 10 years old IS250 - I was treated like trash. 2 years old RC200t - treated decently, I would not say exceptionally, but great service overall. In other country I had brand new IS250 back in the day and was treated like a king. All in all, found Lexus service not exceptional, but it was good value for money, especially when they had "Essential Care", sadly almost every time they messed something-up forgotten something or there was some issue, not with service itself, but as I have said - forgetting to book courtesy car and similar.

Actually, I realised that 1999 is quite convenient year for comparisons, because Toyota not only launched brand new Yaris that year... they as well launched one other brand new car - Lexus IS (technically 1998 October in Japan). And here we can make few very interesting comparisons, so we can clearly see how Toyota was moving up-market, here I tracked RAV4, Rush (sort of lifted Yaris from back of the day, so good comparison for Yaris Cross), Yaris and for competitor - BMW 320: Price in brackets is adjusted for inflation, note some prices are converted from US dollars, the Rush price is from Malaysian Ringgit, so there would be some variation. I tried to adjust for it by using models that are sold in both countries (RAV4) although I doubt this would affect conclusion. So here something interesting happens... Yaris used to cost only 33% of IS price, the Rush was ~44% and RAV4 61%. As well BMW was 2 years old model by 1999 (launched 1997) but was still slightly more expensive. So this just illustrates two things - how IS was good value for money compared to BMW, because that was brand new model on the market competing against older model (although, I suspect BMW back in the days was selling below list price). And secondly - how premium was Lexus compared to Toyota or how cheap the Toyota was. So buying 1 Lexus was equivalent to buying 3 Yaris, or 2.5 Toyota rush, or 1.5 RAV4 Now we come to another interesting part, so first of all there is obviously no Lexus IS in UK, but I tried to estimate the cost by triangulating it with RAV4 (that is sold in both US and UK), but it makes no sense whatsoever and I just can't see Lexus IS being more than £45,000 for current model. In UK RAV4 is ~£42,000, in US only $33,000... so if we adjust US Lexus price of $42,000 like for like, that would be £55,000, which would be absurd. Anyway - that caveat out of the way, what becomes clear is that Lexus IS would have to sell pretty much for the same price as it used to cost back in 1999, instead of being slightly cheaper than BMW, it would be slightly more expensive (and that is trend which we had for good 10 years now and what in my opinion killed IS in UK - nobody pays premium over BMW for IS, it has to be slightly cheaper to sell). The second thing which I didn't expect is that brand new BMW now would be relatively speaking cheaper than it was in 1999. And finally we get to my point - Yaris is now 52% of IS price, Yaris-Cross 60% of the price and RAV4 is not only more expensive than BMW, but as well nearly the same price as IS. So Yaris climbed 19% up the market, Yaris Cross 16% and RAV4 whopping 33%! Conclusion - Toyota just pushed IS out of UK market as there was no price point for it here, it would look silly either way you price it. Toyota increased the prices across the range... and BMW turns out is genuinely good value now! There is one other way to look at it - seems like BMW may have played the role pushing the Lexus IS out as well, the reduced their 3-Series price or simply kept it the same and squeezed IS out as it could not compete at that price point. I would speculate that Toyota simply decided not to compete for entry-exec saloon market as that was not their core focus and they simply abandoned it for more lucrative SUV space and exited IS.

Well maybe an exageration and for sure I have no sources to back this up EXACTLY... but let's just looks at how much cheaper is technology today. What was the price of phone in 1999? Simple phone, not even SMS, camera forget it... so if we make comparison to modern smartphones (which by the way becoming increasingly more expensive as well) then what £500 buys you today, would have required a £1000 phone, £3500 camera, £299 pager, £500 digital diary, £5000 laptop, £400 cd-player and hell knows how many more devices, things like GPS wasn't even available back then in hand held form at all, there was no cam-coder that can record at 4K, 120 or even 240FPS, I think by 1999 you may have had one of the very first digital camcorders with with 320p resolution and 24FPS. So not only the technology inevitably became cheaper, but it is now better. Or even simpler just look at todays laptop vs. laptop 1999. So all the technology became so much cheaper. I remember us buying first LCD TV in like 2002 and we paid ~£1400 for 32" screen, now 75" of way superior technology screen can be bought for £299. So yes LBX may have LSS+ with radar cruise, automatic braking, RCTA, LDA etc... but that is because those things costs literally few pennies nowadays, and back in 1999 the basic radio tape with cassette and rudimentary ABS system costed equivalent amount of money. My point - Yaris Cross not just shares the name with original Yaris, it shares the segment of the car, it is as exciting and modern today as original Yaris was in 1999. Sure now if we look at it it seems basic and shaite, but for contemporary person it would have been equivalent of what Yaris Cross is today and if we look at what Yaris Cross offers today... obviously no car in 1999 had that, not even S-Class. Obviously Toyota would like you to think exactly that - "Yaris Cross is small SUV and original Yaris was sub-compact hatchback, so the price should not be compared". Except that is false - again making car just bigger doesn't cost more money to make it, exact reason why automakers focuses so much on SUVs - it makes easier to gaslight people into believing they buying bigger and more luxurious car. That is exact reason why all car are always becoming bigger when next generations comes along. Current 3-Series is bigger than last 5-Series and bigger than 7-Series from 90s. Exactly - the quality difference in materials is very noticeable going from mk2 to mk3 and then again from mk3 IS to ES. As you said ES is distinctively Toyota and if you have a chance to try Avalon, then you will realise how unbelievable similar it is to ES. Not a problem in itself, but when you get out of the Lexus and sit inside ES, you will notice instantly.

I thought that is the rule everywhere? Parking facing the flow is like driving wrong way down the road... well you basically have to drive wrong way to park that way. Although it seems more like Police problem and less Parking Wardens problem. That said it is still much better than people parking forwards and then reversing into the road blind. I guess that just goes to show that in Europe they still care a little bit for rules, whereas in UK it is free for all - do whatever you please...

It depends on perspective and there are several perspectives available - whenever I believe Lexus is rebadged Toyota, whenever general public believes it is rebadged Toyota, whenever it actually is rebadged Toyota, then further clarification is needed if we talking past, present or future and finally if that is intended to be the case or not. So when it comes to time perspective, Lexus was not originally rebadged Toyota, if we talking about LS in particular, then it was grounds-up new project and better car then any Toyota before it, well deserving it's own brand. Now many apologist for badge engineering would point out that from beginning Lexus cars were rebadged Toyotas, because Toyota had same cars with their badge, but that is wrong. Those cars were Lexus badged as Toyotas, not Toyotas badged as Lexus. And there is difference - when LS was sold as Celsior that meant you were getting Lexus quality for Toyota price. When Avalon is badged as ES, then it means you getting Toyota for Lexus price. So in first case it is a win and good value, in second case it is very poor value and obvious loss. Now again from that historic perspective Lexus was Lexus (with exception of ES which was always Toyota) until the launch of CT (Toyota Auris), many people back then argued it will cheapen the brand and it did. It didn't have to happen, Lexus could have had CT on offer, but stay premium, but that is in my opinion when the brand took and obvious downwards trend (even thought I was not initially against CT itself). There were positives, next year they launched GS mk4, which remains one of the best Lexus cars ever, but I would say the lack of quality feels in IS mk3 and RC, so CT started sucking out the "premium" part from the bottom, first it affected IS, then RC was mostly based on IS and then finally GS replacement with ES. So in summary Lexus was going up in terms of Luxury from 1989>2011, from 2011>2019 it was going downwards, but still offering some stand out models, and since 2019 it is just outright fashion accessory and badge engineering. Both remaining true Lexus models were introduced before 2019 (current gen LS and LC) and the only models that Lexus realistically maintains are RX and NX. The rest is rebadged Toyota. Now does public thinks that - yes, but depends on the country, depends on how informed they are... starting from most ignorant, they don't care either way, they don't know nothing about the cars, nor what Lexus is or what's is their relation to Toyota (this is majority), then there are people who are little bit into cars, but still ignorant and they generally look down on Lexus as Toyota puppet brand and then there is very small minority who actually knows exactly where the boundaries are and what Lexus means. In other hand in middle-east Toyota = Lexus, they value both, but they don't consider either to be Premium/Luxury. They can have BMW or MB as premium car, but Lexus is a cleaners car, maybe taxi, it is just not considered luxury brand or at all separate from Toyota. What I think - Lexus LS, LC and RX are Lexus, NX is very well upgraded RAV4 and genuinely good car and the rest are overpriced rebadged Toyota cars. And that is actually true, because UX is 100% rebadged Toyota CHR, drove both, they are identical in all key areas and likewise useless. Basically if I had to get car of that size then the Corolla would be the best option, because UX/CH-R are just bigger, more stupid looking Corolla, which actually has LESS space inside, less space in the back, less boot space and are really just higher-up from the road. Overall, current gen Corolla is great car and if it had RWD and maybe V6 option I would not be winging here, I would just have that (Corrola GR exists, but it is AWD and it is hatchback and it is not sold in Europe/UK). Same for LBX, even thought I have not tried neither Yaris Cross, nor obviously LBX, but it will be just stupid lifted Yaris... although at least bigger this time and I would even call it pretty (whereas UX is ugly). ES is based on Avalon, not Camry, but all 3 are same platform and again ES it is identical to Avalon, down to button layout and all key areas, from the 3 cars I actually prefer Camry the most. Again problem for me is that Camry is FWD. And by the way - I don't have an issue with Camry, nor Avalon... I have issue with them being called ES and sold for more money. Although Toyota is so upmarket now that the price difference is minimal, supporting my statement that perhaps Lexus no longer serves the purpose and does not need to exist. Could it be argued that ES got little bit more sound proofing? Yes it did... does ES get premium quality leather seats in Takumi spec which is not available on Avalon? Yes that is correct as well. But does $20 worth of extra foam padding and $200 worth of leather upgrade makes Avalon into Lexus... NO it doesn't! I guess in summary - I just can't see why Lexus exist anymore. In my opinion they either need to significantly improve the Lexus, to the point where IS may cost £10,000 more than BMW 3-Series, but the equipment and performance would put even 5-Series to shame... in which case it is win-win-win - Toyota moves upmarket and becomes competitor to BMW/MB, Lexus moves further up-market and becomes more Luxurious than BMW/MB and sort of more in the class of maybe Maserati, Porsche and Bentley and consumer wins, because now you have Toyota at £40,000 but rivalling BMW at £50,000, and you have Lexus at £60,000 but offering the level of Luxury that otherwise is £90,000. Or the second option is for Toyota to back down, which I guess from Toyota perspective would be lose-lose-win, so they sell Toyota for less, they sell Lexus for less, but for consumer that is still good outcome because they can get alternative to German car for decent price. However, what we currently have have is win-win-lose situation - Toyota sells for more, Lexus sells for more, but we as consumer have to overpay for both or go German. And yes you right - that is not only Toyota, that is all car manufacturers hiking the prices and £44,000 for Golf is indeed ridiculous... but why not if Toyota sells CHR with UX badge for similar money and Golf is probably better car for £44,000 than CH-R is (although it should be noted it is Golf-R we talking about here with all-wheel drive and 320HP, the CHR equivalent Style-Hybrid is £29,000). In the end of the day this is part consumer problem, if consumer say F-U, I am not paying £44,000 for Golf regardless of what engine it has inside and I am not paying £35,000 for Yaris with Lexus badge on it, and I simply going to keep my current car for extra 2 years... there will be no other option but for car manufacturers to compete more and drop the prices, or offer genuine upgrade so good that consumer finally decides it is worth it. But as I said - people seems to have too much disposable money to wasted on the cars and the current pricing will continue until that is the case.

Because I like my Toyotas to be more Luxurious than BMW/MB without sacrificing reliability, GENUINLY good value and I like them to be RWD. That is what Lexus used to be, that was the point of Lexus... before they completely lost the plot, discontinued any cars I would be interested in and remaining cars are now shameless badge engineered Toyotas with minimal improvements. When I came to own Lexus my choice was between BMW 320d M-Sport manual with basically no options inside or Lexus IS250 F-Sport which was fully loaded with electric seats that were not only heated, but cooled and with memory, not to mention 50 other ways it was better equipped than BMW - FOR THE SAME PRICE! Well obviously that is no brainer, that was the Lexus appeal, you were getting more than in German cars for less money... be it at little bit of stigma of being "just fancy Toyota" and having to explain to everyone it actually isn't a Toyota and shares very little with it... and puts your Beeeeemer to the shame in any measurable way. Now on top of that I HATE SUVs, so obviously I am not very happy where market is going to at the moment in general, and very very not happy with Lexus in particular because it seems they only do SUVs now, if you go to BMW they have SUVs, but they still have 3-Series, 4-Series, 5-series, even 2-series... so you have a "choice". That said RX and NX are great LEXUS SUVs that are genuine attempts into making Lexus, even if they share a lot of Toyota parts. RX to be honest doesn't really have equivalent in Toyota range now (used to be Harrier, but now harrier is more of variant of RAV4, whereas RX despite sharing platform with quite a few models is kind of it's own thing) and despite being based on RAV4, the NX was so extensively upgraded that it feels like totally different car. Although, I guess RAV4 itself is quite good SUV so there was solid base to build on. Anyway, I hate SUVs, but if somebody wants recommendation for SUV then NX and RX are solid choices. Then we come to stupid concept of Crossover... sort of "raised-hatchback". As you may guess if I already hate SUVs, then Crossovers stands no chance - they are just plainly stupid in my opinion. SUV itself is crossover between true 4x4 off-roader and MPV, so crossover of crossover is real travesty. Now sure - it is your money, you buy whatever you like, that is your right and I have no issue with that. But that won't change my option about it, not it will change the fact the thing is badge engineered Toyota which is double-overpriced. Again - well done to Toyota marketing team to market the product so well that people overpay money for it and feels like "it is their choice". Overall, it is kind of funny when they say "consumers wants more SUVs we just fulfilling the demand", yeah SURE... because if I don't want SUV I have plenty of choice RIGHT?! The reality is that manufacturers realised that making same car bigger, taller and more bulbous cost nothing extra, but they can charge more for it. SUVs thus are higher margin products, so all manufacturers jumped on the train to push as many SUVs to the market as they can instead of focusing on traditional models. Obviously, this is just a fashion trend and fashion trends comes and goes, there were years of Estate cars, there were years of Coupes, of Hatchbacks, of SUVs, now we onto Crossovers... I hope this stupid fashion won't stick, but it might, because of other complexities related with market and consumer being what consumer is - ignorant and uneducated. Anyway, it is just funny how people fall for this "illusion of choice" trope. Have you tried driving Avalon or even Camry? I presume you tried driving C-HR? Can you explain me then why Lexus ES and UX exist? Because they are absolutely identical, there is no spin on it, there is no special Lexus recipe how to make Toyota more luxurious, it is just the same car with different badge, slightly different shape buttons on steering wheel, actually worse infotainment and it costs more money. What if I want my traditional coupe/saloon instead of 3-series? What is my choice now? FWD ES? To be honest if Lexus have kept IS, RC and GS I would have no problem with flood of SUVs and stupid Crossovers, brands will try to expand their market reach and I appreciate that... but that is not the case with Lexus... they have simply abandoned their long term clients to expand in more profitable SUV market, because it turns out profit margins on coupes and saloons were too low for them to bother. I mean there is whole different problem of Toyota moving up-market and Lexus moving down-market and how that makes Lexus kind of a little bit of a joke... Again big topic - but oversimplification was that Toyota was economy car company (remember them being compared to "white goods"?), soulless disposable tools... they launched Lexus as Premium/Luxury brand to compete with MB primarily. Problem is that now the Toyota moved so much upmarket that things like Avalon could compete with say Audi A6 like for like, maybe not exactly BMW 5-Series or MB E-Class, but lower end FWD Audi for sure, RAV4 is outright better than X3. Yet at the same time, Lexus moving down-market, it used to be real pain for MB when LS launched, because it offered more than S-Class for less money, that is the point of Lexus - offering amazing value Luxury... BUT now Toyota offers Luxury... why does Lexus needs to exist at all?! The issue with all that - Lexus used to be cheaper than equivalent German competitor, but now Toyota costs just as much, so where Lexus has to go? They can't sell for significantly more than BMW or MB, but they can't cost less than Toyota either? Solution would be to slap Toyota back down where it belongs, competing with Peugeots and similar trash, offering bland, cheap but reliable cars and that would leave Lexus some breathing room to fit the model in price range somewhere between BMW and Toyota, but offering more than BMW. But in all fairness Toyota is probably more recognised brand nowadays anyway, so why sabotage something that is recognised to promote some niche failed "luxury" brand. So Lexus lost it basically, it became irrelevant... and post current gen LC and LS I really don't see the point of their existence. It will basically going to become top trim level for Toyota SUVs and Crossovers. In suture Toyota trim levels probably will look like this "Icon>Design>Excel>GR>Lexus".

What you saying is correct - the cars became more complicated and fitted with more and more technology, the very first car with airbags was probably charging premium for it, the first one with sat-nav did (or it was expensive option), same for ABS, same for radar cruise, same for hybrid systems, same for automatic lights etc. etc. So I think we can all agree that all technology is costly at first, then it becomes widespread and it trickles down to lower-end models models. Right? So if we have pressure of inflation making cars (and especially technology within them) more expensive, we have exactly opposite pressure from technology becoming cheaper and normalised and should in theory make same cars to have more "stuff" yet be cheaper or at least cost the same. Make no mistake - technology that went into original Yaris in 1999 was as advanced for the time and as expensive as the technology that goes into brand spanking new Lexus Yaris Cross in 2023. For Toyota it cost exactly the same amount of money to make £35,000 Toyota LBX as back in 1999 it costed to make original Yaris. The only thing that has changes is their profit margins and they want to increase them even further with this little badge engineering. Now I agree - that is simplification, the regulatory cost for example has risen significantly, now cars undergo more rigorous testing, the expectations and standards are higher, so the cars cost more to make and it cost more to sell them, but not £10,000 more (that is inflation adjusted Yaris cost £13,644 vs. Yaris Cross cost now). So when I said that back in the day such car would have the cost of ~£16,000-£19,000... that could be adjusted a little bit, but there is no way we end-up with Yaris Cross price of ~£26,000 and certainly not close to £35,000 I predict the LBX to sell for. As for competition - I think there is plenty of it and they all are just egregiously priced, like Toyota LBX or for that matter Lexus CH-R (for LBX - BMW X1, Audi Q2, MB GLA... for Yaris Cross - Nissan Juke, many Peugeots, Citroens, Fiat 500X). Car manufacturers are having absolute field day ripping off the increasing ignorant consumers. I have theory as well why consumers are increasingly ignorant, but that is maybe for another time (or another comment if we stay on the topic). I would end by saying that Lexus DOES NOT NEED cars like CH-R or Yaris Cross in it's line-up, they are too small to really justify making them luxurious and the product will be compromised either way you look at it. You can't make them too luxurious because of small size, you can't make good value because of the brand... so they shouldn't exist if we look at it rationally or logically. Lexus would be okey just selling IS/RC/NX as entry-level luxury saloon, coupe and SUV... and UX/LBX could be just the top of the range trim in Toyota line-up, but again the problem is that Toyota is way to expensive as it is and adding extra trim on top of already overpriced line-up would simply make it look silly as they would effectively end-up in MB/BMW/Audi territory... and nobody in their right mind would choose car called Yaris Cross with Toyota badge on it instead of even most basic C-Class.