Linas.P

I think what makes mk3 feel fresher than it is... in UK is that we never got mk3.5. And for the same price they haven't depreciated more in line with the market (I know market is crazy, but not that crazy for 10 year car with 100k+ miles to cost £12k+). So yes it is still "current model" because we never got the new car and I don't directly consider ES as replacement. I am not saying it is bad car, just recognising it is 10 years old now, but in other hand it did aged well... even interior if you got F-Sport still feels very modern... not even sure if there any car today which does something significantly better. Add 10.8" android sat-nav screen and it is pretty much as good car as any.

As well there is an option GS300, little bit divisive look, didn't aged as well, but all in all cheaper insurance, same road tax, little bit more power and little bit less fuel efficient in the city. But you can get one for £2000, whereas auto IS250 is really hard to get below £3000. Obviously that are the prices on low-end so expect some issues, so add another £1500 for both to get decent example... but compared to IS220d I think GS300 is the next best thing in terms of price and IS250 Auto is an extra £1000. Lexus IS250 manual would be decent for £2000, not as well matched as auto, but still better than diesel, but £675 road tax is ridiculous, so then you are limited to buying very earlies examples which are very rare. As well I forgotten to mention but OP did great job of asking before buying. How many times we have to deal with dramas after purchase... So well done for doing research Mark!

At very least regular service history, I would almost say that is more important than any particular service items individually. So that is more psychological thing than it is mechanical - if owners were sticking to service schedule, then they likely were fixing everything that needs fixing as well. It is basically attitude of sticking to car services and keeping it in good condition. Following the service schedule and replacing fluids and whatever schedule say is bare minimum, but if you get all invoices then it is really not hard to piece it together, because Lexus always gives RAG of the issues that needs fixing. If you can see that owner addressed the issues, either with Lexus, or maybe third party garage after they were raised, then again this shows correct attitude and you can have confidence buying the car. However, if you see missing services (should never ever happen under any circumstances), or if you see same items being pointed out times and times again, then it is good indicator car was not cared for or owner lacked either money or knowledge to care. Same for advisories in MOT, once it is not issue, but if you see advisory for 5 years in a row, then it is sign of bad owner. As well MOT failure for obvious things, sure if it failed for some obscure ball-joint where you have to be under the car to see, then fine... it happens. But if the car failed due to bald tyres, low brake pads, not working lights then again this is indicator that person who owned the car had no clue how to care for it... anyone who is knowledgeable (and sadly it seems such people are increasingly rare) would do a little "walk around" before MOT, just kick tyres, look at the thread, look at the pads, switch the lights and see if obvious things are all working... things that one would expect to be working when just generally driving the car, but just a little extra step. I am sure nobody check if they fog lights are working before each drive, but before MOT is exactly the time to do, if owner could not bother spending 10 minutes looking at the car before MOT, then rest assured they never cared in the first place. Now one personal bug bear of mine are mismatched or budget tyres, sure there are plenty of exceptions, but generally that is the sign of bad care and it simple check. People who understands the cars and cares for them won't have mismatched tyres on same axle, and I would argue, nor they would have budget tyres. Mid-range tyres are fine, premium tyres are preferred on premium car, but if they are budget or worse... mismatched budget, then expect the service history being about the same. I generally use it as a first red flag, meaning I will check car extra thoughtfully and with full scepticism if I see mismatched tyres and instead of giving it benefit of the doubt I will consider that anything that isn't written on the paper isn't done. Obviously, we need to add caveat about the price etc. If you paying top price for the car, then expect all above to be in order, if the price is average, then some of the things will be missing, but if you buying the cheapest example on the market then it will likely have a lot of red flags. In short - you get what you pay, but make sure you get it, because I often see cars listed at high price with statements "always cared for no expense spared" and car sits on 3 different budget tyres and one Continental which predates the car itself!

My first advise - avoid IS220d overall. If you want to know more details just read few pages on this forum and you will know why. In short they are very unreliable and that is the reason why they are cheap. People make big mistake thinking that Lexus/Toyota are reliable, hence all the cars they made are reliable, but that is not the case with IS220d. As far as advisories and failed MOT go... I would say your colleague doesn't sound like the most genuine seller, either he has no clue about the cars or he is disingenuous about the condition. I would focus primarily on the rear brake issues - if "Rear Brake disc in such a condition that it is seriously weakened", then the car had to be driven in very poor condition for very very long time, it does not happen overnight. Together with low brake pad fault I would assume sticking calliper in the rear. In itself is not really that bad, sticking callipers are common on Lexus (IS250, IS220d and all other cars using that design of calliper), however if he didn't notice that, then what else he didn't notice? SRS fault indicates there is an issue with airbag, so it could be caused as result of accident, in either case this is unusual and could be expensive to repair. The calliper issues not going to be very expensive to fix - I reckon 2x new callipers (the actually all remanufactured) £140, 2x discs £50, set of pads £50 and maybe £80 labour. So you looking at £320. SRS fault could be anything, basically needs codes scanned and investigated... it could be a lose wire or blown fuse, or it may require SRS module or airbag replaced so it could be £10 or it could be £1000. The advisories are nothing special... surface rust mostly and on suspension components, which is common on these cars. Potentially cars was living in salty environment, rarely cleaned and that is the result, quite common overall. This doesn't make sense. But I guess what you/he means - he failed MOT because of to 2 Dangerous and 1 Major fault, then he fixed only those faults and got the car retested. As he only fixed the faults and didn't fix advisories the MOT centre marked the same advisories again. Generally MOT testers cannot add new problems that were not previously identified on failed MOT. To be fair to him here - there isn't much he could have done about the advisories... Sure if it would have been myself... I would have at least attempted to clean what is possible to clean brake pipes, there is no advisory for front disks so presumably he replaced those? and the rest of advisories are just general surface rust under the car - not much you can do about it.

If you keep rear silencers original then it won't make it much louder. Basically, resonator is there not to reduce the sound to to reduce certain sequences which causes droning at certain speeds. The silencers at the back are what reduces the sound. So if you want more noise, but not drone, then keep the middle resonator and replace the rear silencers instead. Or remove all of them if you looking to make it antisocial... Straight piped IS250 actually sounds quite good, just not for everyone I guess.

Removing cats from IS250 would be very difficult, but I believe mk3 300h has one big cat and thieves generally like hybrids... Something to do with amount of platinum and it being cleaner in hybrid car. As for the styling... it is obviously very personal thing, I think mk2 is very "clean" design which has aged very well, I like mk3 details, but it is kind of bit fussy and I much prefer RC, because same details are better proportioned on RC than they are on IS.

It really depends how much you are paying for insurance... for me it was never worth claiming form insurance and that is why I personally have very bad view towards insurance overall, kind of exactly the point - "why am I paying for this crap if in case of accident I can't even make a claim (well I could, but it is just disadvantageous to do it)". My insurance on average was over £800 for the last 10 years already and obviously it increased when I made claims on it. EVEN if it is not your fault... actually EVEN if you don't make claim, but merely mention to them about the accident (which contractually you are required to do - so called "notification only") it will go up. So depending on how much you pay and how big is a damage, sometimes it is better to keep quiet. For example if your damage is £500 and you pay £1000 for insurance... and let's assume insurance will increase by ~20% for 3 years... well you better of not telling insurance about it. If you pay £280 and it is £2000 of damage then obviously it is better to let insurance handle it. Obviously it all comes down to being able to accurately estimate the cost of repairs - because if you think it is £200 and it turns out it costs £2000, then you will be out of pocket quite a bit. Unfortunately for me people who crashed into me were all idiots (perhaps part of the reason why the crashed) and every single time they would not agree it was their fault... at which point sadly I had no choice, but to report it and for their stupidity both their and my insurance went up. Even thought every time they could have solved the issue for £500 and forget about it.

If memory serves right, then it took you 3 attempts to get it right?

As far as I am concerned that 19" were already impractical and as big as I would go on RC. 18" probably would be best suited for the car in terms of economy/comfort/handling... 19" are sacrifice for the style. The 20" obviously is even further compromise... if you want the looks then sure go for 20"... I reckon the arches on RC can even take 22" if you have right widths and offsets. I mean it is not exactly complicated, if you put lower profile tyre and keep wheel size the same they will fit - https://www.wheel-size.com/calc/?wheel1=265-35-19X9ET45&wheel2=265-30-20X9ET45&fcl=50mm&wcl=30mm&scl=50mm&sr=0mm you can do same comparison on fronts.

£3700 is a lot, although I agree with Dave - we don't know the extent of damage. The "smart" repairs chip away does are trash... the problem is not how they look right away after the repair, but how they look after 3 years. If your goal is to fix the car and sell it right away, then perhaps the is a way forward (if a little disingenuous for the buyer), but if you planning to keep the car then certainly not a way forward. Colour matching will be horrible as usual and 3 years later the part will be decolorated and peeling etc. etc. You can't fix car paint on the cheap. Now sure... some people are not as sensitive to paint imperfections as I am, so for some it may be "good enough". But if you want it done "right" then chip away is not the option.

Just from personal experience with IS mk2 - lower miles may actually be worse... the cars which spend more time standing, may be worse than higher mileage cars (provided they were maintained) Technology in mk2 is very good, honestly it is much better equipped even than mk3 (unless you paid to get best trim and options)... and it is kind of few ways to look at it - Lexus is horrible as far as infotainment controls are considered to mk2 from 2005 is not much worse than the really latest car from 2023. However where all the other options are concerned e.g. heated cooled seats and similar stuff, then mk2 may actually be better. Where I really agree - on Lexus the service history is particularly important. If maintained Lexus are much more reliable cars than any other brand, regardless of mileage. But if not maintained they can become real headache.

I am sure they can make actual car which costs the same as Tesla, but is actually drivable reliable and door trims are in single lien and not literally half-inch out of line. It won't be "affordable" (depending on definition), but it would be worth the cost. It is hard to argue what actually "affordable" means. In my mind anything under £20k new should be considered "affordable", then perhaps £20-45k would be mainstream and anything above that "premium/luxury"... most of current EVs are ~£35k+ so they are not affordable and are generally towards the really top of mainstream. I do believe BEVs under £20k are possible, BEVs towards lower end of mainstream should be more common, but Lexus is not the company to deliver it... and RZ for £65k+ is honestly madness, but I cannot see anything that Lexus could deliver to the market under £45k... perhaps LBX, but I have my own thought about that as well.

I don't think it is historically correct, even if it seems that it is the future... and it is core of my criticism. I consider that JDM cars were Lexus cars badged as Toyotas for domestic market, because for whatever reason Toyota didn't want to introduce new brand in Japan. I know this is splitting hairs, but I consider that Toyota Aristo was based on Lexus GS, not that GS that was based on Aristo. Even thought Toyota basically builds both of them. This point of view is fully supported by Lexus history... Again if we looking at GS example, the car was specifically designed grounds-up as Lexus model, with intention to be first and foremost Lexus, with "distinctive looks based on European cars", design started in 1988 and it was intended for sale abroad as Lexus, Italdesign specifically looked at the lines of LS and SC when designing it and not Toyota models. So they designed Lexus GS, then they took that Lexus GS and put Toyota badge on it for sales at home. Both cars were introduced simultaneously in 1991, but Toyota Aristo didn't exist before that and as such it only exist because Lexus GS was launched. Now if we look at ES then this obviously it is different, because ES was clearly based on exiting Camry at the time of launch and Camry existed before Lexus brand was launched. So ES is Toyota, GS is Lexus. IS didn't have direct equivalent, but Mark X shared engines and few other parts, RC had do equivalents and LC shares the platform with LS and Toyota Mirai, but obviously there is nothing in common between the cars. Anyway - it does not matter if you agree or disagree with me. My point is that the only reason to buy Lexus are cars like IS, GS, LS, RC, LS... they cost more because they are better, because they are Lexus! And I don't even care if they have Toyota badge on them (like Soarer or like Celsior... everyone know Celsior is just Toyota badged LS). What is not okey is some non-sensical LBX which is just Lexus badged Yaris Cross for £32,000+. This car should not exist, not only it is not okey for it to be called Lexus, is not even okey for Yaris to cost £28,000+ in the first place. For ES they can at least argue that UK market doesn't have Avalon/Camry and thus ES fills some niche... But you can indeed buy Yaris-Cross already... so what exact market LBX fills? Car for idiots who want to overpay extra on top of already overpriced Yaris? In short - I don't actually care about the badge as I have already said, if you can buy Lexus with Toyota badge for less (Celsior, Aristo), then great... however if they offering you Toyota with Lexus badge for more, then it is a scam... it makes no sense. Trash like Yaris Cross is not even worth £22,000 as it is, so slapping Lexus badge on it and asking even more is outright insulting!

I have seen many picking-up Volvo/Polestar (which I am not fan of due to Chinese ownership), as well quite a few going with the "fashion" and getting SUVs (again not my cuppa). LC I guess little bit different breed - people who had LC can easily move into 8-Series, or Aston Martin, or 911 and similar cars. £100k+ segment has some interesting choice, but I would argue one does not need to spend £100k (very few could) to find something other than SUV. As IS/RC owners I am struggling quite a bit to see myself as Lexus owner in the future.

Seems ~235/50R17 if you want to keep same wheel circumference: https://www.wheel-size.com/calc/?wheel1=235-45-18X7.5ET45&wheel2=235-50-17X7.5ET45&wheel3=225-45-17X7.5ET40&fcl=50mm&wcl=30mm&scl=50mm&sr=0mm But honestly anything ~3-5% + or - would work.

My argument is that - they shouldn't be "incrementally improved Toyotas" and it is not true that they were originally. Again LS - is it's own model even today... there is nothing incrementally improved about it, Toyota has no equivalent. Same for GS, IS, RC and LC. So they are not incrementally improved Toyotas (again outside of some weird badge engineering in Japan). This is what I want Lexus to be, what I expect Lexus to be and what they should be. If Toyota wants to improve incrementally, they can simply add new trim or additional equipment options to CH-R or Yaris Cross, they don't need to put Lexus badge on it. Finally... look I get it, Toyota nowadays are so expensive, then they basically can't increase the price of their cars without changing the badge on them... but that is still wrong... Toyotas are simply too expensive so I think criticism is still justified i.e. I want Lexus to be Lexus, not just overpriced Toyota.

The sales team work 7 days a week, so yes it is quite normal that they work on different schedules and have days off on random days of the week.

I got myself Yokohama BluEarth-GT AE51 and went for 225/40 and 245/40 sizes, which were over £30 cheaper per tyre than normal sizes. I think total cost for all £4 was ~£350, but I can't see any way of getting decent set of tyre for any less than that. Well I guess "got" maybe a little bit premature to say... cannot comment on how they are yet, but at least on the paper they were good value and should at least be safe to drive on.

How would you like to define the difference? So "premium" are the companies that have their parent company and uses their tech e.g. Audi being "premium" of VW right? What does it makes Porsche then? Or Bentley? Because you saying Bentley is "luxury", but it is still owned by WV. What does it make VW Phaeton then? Because that one was basically Bentley with WV badge. And if we say "luxury" are the brand that are sort of independent and not related to more mainstream car brand, then are we saying BMW and MB are "luxury" brands then, but Audi and Lexus are just "premium"? I think that is semantics - "premium" or "luxury" that is same thing as far as I am concerned. If having mainstream brand equivalent makes brand "premium", then I don't want Lexus to be "premium"... I want it to be "luxury" as was the case with LS, IS, GS, RC that have no Toyota equivalents. Except of weird Japanese down-badging, where they used Toyota brand domestically on Lexus models, but that is the same as VW did with Phaeton and if that doesn't make Bentley "premium" brand, then it shouldn't make Lexus "premium" brand either. I think it could be summarised - I simply don't like badge engineering. I can accept it to some degree, where platform of the mainstream model is used as a basis but completely reworked (like RX or LC - they share the platform, but all the panels and bodywork are different) and where both the basis of the car and end product still represents brand values and quality. I am already not impressed with CT and UX, I don't believe they different enough from Auris and CH-R to justify weaning Lexus badge, new ES is even worse... where I can't tell any difference between build quality or materials between it and Avalon it is based on. But at least all these models in theory fit with Lexus brand... Yaris Cross just does not fit... it is inherently economy car, built to the budget, you can't make it "luxury" and you can't even make it "premium", because doing it makes the car actually worse... It was designed to be as cheap as possible, so making less cheap just makes it worse... I consider that a conflict of design ideas and purpose... there is no way of wining it. If Lexus makes it "luxurious" then they going to ruin the purpose of the car (of being cheap and economical). If Lexus going keep it's purpose, then it simply going to dilute itself as a brand to literally offering economy car. There is no way of winning this and thus I would argue model should never be included in Lexus range. If somebody wants car as small, as cheap and as shaitty as LBX, they should not be buying Lexus anyways.

Could be that, but I suggest you read the contract, because you may find there is clause saying that excess is £1000. But as I said, even if you technically liable, Lexus may just absorb it anyway and not pass it on. Especially if they feel it was genuine accident. In other hand if they feel it was negligent or malicious, then they may enforce it. But Lexus isn't some nasty rental company where 90% of their income is coming from charges on scratched alloys, which were already scratched and they just trying to rip you off for the same scratch 20th time. I had accidents in rental cars where it was not my fault and they still tried to go after my excess...

Not all face lift cars had AA/CP... Lexus started fitting new infotainment into RC in 2018 (there are some pre-FL with new system), but AA/CP only came at some point in 2019, maybe even in 2020... so it is possible that cars up-to certain date in 2019 didn't have it fitted (or according in this particular case Lexus claims didn't have right firmware?!).

Why not... it is not their problem, it is yours. So it is really simple deal - you either pay £10 and have £0 excess, or you pay nothing, but in case you get into accident and it is your fault, then you may need to pay £500-£1000 excess from your pocket. I would assume it would be £1000 for RX. This £10 supplement is actually relatively new thing, they introduced it maybe 5 Years ago, previously you would always be liable for excess, so they just giving you the option to waive it now for a fee. I have crash one of Lexus courtesy cars, it was CT and it had £500 excess on it... but it was not my fault and Lexus were very relaxed about it, they didn't even bothered to go after the person who crashed into me. For them it was probably cheaper to use their own body shop to do PDR (it was rather small accident, paint wasn't damaged, but door was dented), than it was to go trough business insurance which must already cost fortune and risk of the price of it increasing next year. Anyway - my point is Lexus would absolutely let you have RX without excess waiver, because it is your risk and not theirs. I am not sure how well you could argue that you didn't know about the excess, technically you should read what you signing for, but argument could be made that they should have explained to you that by taking courtesy car you are liable to pay excess in case of an accident. That would certainly be nice thing to do, but reading contracts is your responsibility.

Yes... that is as well what I would do. It is ~£500-700 and you get the system which is 5 times better than Lexus one. Although the FL cars do have pretty much the best system Lexus has made to this date. Pre-FL I would not even bother and would fit third party replacement right away.

Yes, sorry I probably should have been clearer - as Phil explained it does not affect your "no claim bonus", but it is still "the claim" recorded against you. It is same thing when you get involved in the accident which is not your fault, that does not affect your "no claim bonus", but it is still "the claim" on your policy. And yes - even if it wasn't your fault your insurance will increase next year! No claim bonus is basically an industry wide "discount", it varies from company to company, but it is generally accepted that they discount up-to 5 years and approximately 5% for each year of NCB. The accident/claim history is completely separate thing which just feeds into their "magic scam algorithm" and your "risk" increases with each claim, to be hones in my experience it does not matter whenever it is your fault or non-fault... again this may be anecdotal evidence, but I found personally that each "claim" increased cost of my insurance by ~10%, but when I got 3 claims (2 non-fault accidents + windscreen) then suddenly my insurance jumped by £500 as many companies outright refused to insure me. Next year 2 out of 3 claims expired (over 3 years old) and insurance dropped by ~£400. Now to be fair - windscreen claims usually do not impact you before you move to a different insurance company. Maybe it is sort of "unspoken" trick to lock you into relationship. However, for me it was always cheaper to change provider than it was to renew, renewals always much more expensive than new quote, so that is probably why I found out about this.

That is interesting... because I am sure if you ask them the same question after purchasing the car, then the answer would be that "it is not possible just to upgrade the firmware and it is hardware issue".