GSLV6

I have to agree with some on this thread. My 2007 GS had the most comfortable seats I've ever encountered (10 way adjustable) with adjustment of the head restraint. I tried a 2014 GS450h and felt that 1) the seats were too firm and ii) less supportive because the seat cushion was shorter (and felt narrower, whether it was or wan't) and in common with the IS300, the head restraint I felt was too far forwards at too aggressive and angle. It would have cripled me on a longer run. The solution in a borrowed IS300 courtesy car I had for a weekend, was to lower the head restraint to its lowest setting so it didn't catch the back of the head in the middle, forcing the neck into a cricked position. It was fine with the seats quite reclined, but anything like an upright driving position and I found it agonsingly uncomfortable. The RX seating, by complete contrast, I find way more comfortable. They're not as firm and the head restraint doesn't seem to push the head forwards quite as much. Lexus seem to have taken the 2007 Mk3 GS and actually made the seating far less comfortable in the new models despite all the R&D.

35 is pretty good. You have a little more tyre pressure than me, but still, can't see 1 psi or so making almost 4mpg difference. I'd be very happy with 35mpg motorway. To be fair, there were a few longish hills thrown in as I was travelling between Gloucester and Monmouthshire on the M5, so had a few long drags uphill Bristol, a few downhill runs, then over the Severn Bridge, and the return trip, and staying within 70, 32.5 was the best I saw with 31.5 average for that return trip. Not impressed. I'l raise pressures a little more (but stay within recommended range) and see if that makes any difference. It has made me think if there's something amiss sometimes with the hybrid system overall (ie too much frictional drag somewhere in the system) as a few people seem to be getting more like mid 30's average from their 3RXs.

I've found the standard Nav in the 3RX to be a big improvement over the older versions, with better detail (unclassified roads shown) and really no need of anything better, as it also includes real time traffic warnings, diversions etc. No internet service on the Mk3 though AFAIK as, like many others, I think it uses it's own inbuilt receiver for traffic warnings.

Debates of this kind are pretty pointless when they start to get dogmatic. As Rayaans says, the UK specs are 5.9 seconds for both. (power to weight is presumably the same). As with all these figures, they are seldom repeatable and only accurate for the day measured in those environmental conditions, with that driver behind the wheel, with those same tyres fitted, inflated to the same pressures on the same surface. Good luck trying to emulate it. You might be quicker or slower. It's certainly no proof that the Gen 3 is faster than the Gen 4 or vice-versa. The book figures for my GS300 were 7.1 and that seemed about right although when I tried testing myself in as controlled conditions as I could, it varied between 6.8 and 7.7 seconds between runs. I have tried with my RX450h (book gives around 7.7) and averaged 6.7, a full second faster with a fastest run of 6.5. Independent tests seem to bare out a high 6 second figure (eg autotk.com figures are 6.8s @15.2 1/4 mile and Zeroto60times.com give 6.7s &14.9 1/4 mile). It's just not worth people getting their knickers in a twist over

I've had my F-Sport (3RX) for 3 or 4 weeks now and covered a fair few hundred miles, in fact, on my second or third tank of petrol now. Temperatures have typically averaged about 8 degrees this past 3 weeks, so that will take a small toll om mpg, but for interest, these are the figures I'm returning: Tyres all inflated to 2.4 Bar (cold): Extra Urban, excluding motorways on runs over 10 miles: 35mpg Short trips including urban (less than 10 miles): 27mpg Motorway at a steady 70 miles per hour over 30 miles each trip: 31.5mpg Overall tank average: Tank #1: 28mpg; Best 36.7mpg (extra urban, 50 mile trip) Tank#2: 30mpg average, Best again 36.7mpg extra urban (mix of motorway and A roads all within speed limits) Nowhere near as good as the GS300 on the motorway (that returned 38mpg at a steady 70, with a best of 40mpg on one occasion) Overall tank averages for GS300: 28mpg combined. So, rather disappointingly, on the hope of hybrid tech reducing fuel bills, it seems that it makes little to no difference for the RX over the Mk3 GS, mostly due to the extra weight and frontal area. If we take 70% of claimed economy, than take 5% off that for cooler weather, one could reasonably expect to see 30mpg combined this weather, and extra-urban of about 33mpg. The true stats show that this is pretty close to what I'm getting, so for all of you eager beavers looking at mpg figures as a way of persuading you over from your GS's....don't. You won't get any better fuel economy, and far less on motorway trips in fact. It will be interesting to see what the warmer weather brings, in terms of slight improvements, but it seems reasonable to take just 70% of manufacturer's claimed economy as what to expect in reality, IF you drive with a very light right boot. Start to plant it, and those figures above will plummet. How some seem to be getting better than this is a mystery, as I do drive with mechanical sympathy, and coast and glide where possible.

The 2014 model I looked at still had a small boot (much smaller than the Mk3 GS) and no central ski flap. That alone would preclude it for me, and did. It was the deciding factor. Had it been more practical, I may have bought one over the GS, but it just didn't strike me as a very good family car for lack of storage space. The LS didn't seem much better! That, for me is really unforgivable these days when comparing with Mercedes boots, or Audi's or VW's or Skoda Superbs and especially Volvo S60's an Mondeos. They all have much more load space and are more family friendly as a result. That said, the GS was a rocketship and a very refined ride, but not quite as comfy to me as the RX which was equally quiet and refined.

You'll realistically achieve about 70% at best of claimed figures, with careful driving. You cannot expect great fuel economy from ANY 2.2 tonne vehicle driving at 80mph and it is unrealistic to expect manufacturer's xtra-urban figures trying to push such a large brick through the air at 80mph. If you achieve high 20's for the 450h or even the 400h, you'll be doing well enough at 80. Slow down a bit to 70 or under and it makes a big difference. You'll then return mid 30's to the gallon, but as soon as you exceed 70, forget it. Just look at the equation for drag and you'll see why. Drag is directly proportional to the square of the velocity of an object. For those interested, the equation is: Df = Cd (coeff) x density x velocity (squared)/2 multiplied by frontal area. This doesn't take account of extra drag from boundary separation points or vortices. The EU standard for stating economy is at a fixed 56mph or thereabouts as this is reasoned to be where most vehicles operate at peak torque in top gear. You can see that exceeding this by even 10mph and you're asking the engine to overcome much increased drag forces. At 80mph, you're drinking fuel to overcome a substantial increase in drag,so perhaps should consider a different car if economy is a prime concern. My 3GS300 was way more economical even at 90mph Autobhan speeds than my RX is at 70. Frontal area matters, irrespective of drag coefficient stated.

This may help, as I've driven all three cars being discussed and owned two of them: The RX is a completely different beast and really does take a lot of thought and reasoning before deciding. Why? because the driving experience and driving styles for the two cars are completely different. The IS is a great mid sized exec-class car, and does everything you could want of such a car. The move to a GS primarily gives your more cabin room and refinement with the choice of more engines. The 450h is deceptively fast and a lot more powerful tan the IS300 for example. If opting for the F-sport, the 4 wheel steering and stiffened suspension make it a very dynamic drive, although a little firm for our pot-holed roads. One thing that may disappoint with the GS is lack of boot space. As the batteries are stored behind the rear seats you sacrifice a LOT of space compared with something like the Gen3 GS non hybrid(my favourite GS of all) so really need to consider a roof rack and rails for family holidays. Horses for courses, but the only way I'd step up from the IS is to go to the 450h GS otherwise, I don't see many real world advantages other than more toys and being a bit more cosseted with more room for greater running costs. The ride is very good and is very smooth and quiet in the GS as you'd expect. The RX is completely different to drive. To get anything close to even 70% of the quoted fuel economy figures for a start, you have to drive like a nun, plus have mechanical sympathy, avoiding unnecessary braking or acceleration and driving to keep the car in the Eco range for much of the time. It does reward such driving though as it becomes a very relaxed place to be when you're not in a hurry, and then you really get to appreciate it's strengths. You also have to give thought as to which model you choose as there is a significant difference, to my mind anyway, to the driving experience depending on which you pick. For example, if we're talking 3RX and not the latest versions, going to an entry level SE is not to be recommended unless you pick one up cheap. It lacks much of what comes standard on luxury or advance models They are the pick of the bunch for value and kit. The Advance gives larger wheels and tyres, sunroof or pan roof and a few other toys, with options of ML stereo etc etc. They all have excellent load space and all feel very refined to drive. Being seated higher up improves observation (obviously) and once experienced, becomes a major draw to the model. The driving seat and passenger seat are superbly comfortable. I preferred them to the firmer seating of the GS. The dash layout, whilst a little dated is less cluttered although some of the buttons are awkward and almost inaccessible when driving without taking your eyes off the road which is really annoying. On board storage space is plentiful, and rear passenger room better than the GS, plus rear seats recline, as well as folding down creating a whopping 1.7 cubic metres of storage space (approximately). Performance for the 450h is very brisk for a 2.2 tonne vehicle. Lexus claim 7.9 seconds 0-100Kmh (0-62). GPS testing by independent reviewers work out at a full second less than this to 60 which I can attest is nearer the mark. The F-sport is a good compromise between the more sporty drive of the GS and has much reduced body roll over the SE, Lux and Advance models meaning that it corners almost flat, although on bumpy roads, you still get shaken left to right a lot as if driving a big high van...which you are in effect. What it has over the GS is auto 4WD, so has great traction, although it's not a true off roader. For rutted tracks etc, or more challenging driving conditions it does offer an advantage. The F-sport RX also offers LED headlamps, and a head up display both of which are a real advantage, as is the added "sport" mode which sharpens up throttle response for more instant shove, although ALL RX models have an inbuilt lag in throttle response due, apparently, to some US lawsuit (which allegedly was brought about due to carpets snagging under throttle pedals, something now cured). GS or RX will depend on your needs. For a family, the RX wins hands down. It is more comfortable for 4 or 5 people, roomier and more practical and has some driving advantages such as the improved observation from the elevated driving position. It sacrifices some performance, but is no slouch and remains in GTi territory on acceleration and overtaking. The 4GS is a more dynamic drive with a different (more cluttered) layout but more up to date in many ways and is a fair bit quicker due to different tuning offering a 50BHP advantage and is lighter but is 2WD. It is compromised in boot space and rear passengers do better than in the IS but not as well as in the RX which has no transmission tunnel as there's driveshaft to the rear. The final consideration is size. The RX is HUGE. You soon become aware of it's width. those few extra inches make a big difference and you will have to slow down and take extra care to avoid your wing mirrors being clipped by oncoming traffic on narrow roads, to avoid curbing the wheels and when choosing parking spots. I never use supernarket parking spots as I've had too many incidents in the past of ignorant people banging trolleys into my car, or opening doors on it, or even (once last year) someone driving into the side of my car, then driving off. Supermarkets are NOt the natural habitat of an RX. It'll come a cropper sooner or later of you use them unless using one of the larger parent and child slots if you have young children. Finally, the RX takes more cleaning and you will need a step ladder or stool to get to the roof! Personally, as we have a sporty small car, I don't miss the dynamic driving of the GS but do miss it's effortless and refined (non CVT) drive. It was a true GT car in the original sense, with load space, refinement, performance and decent handling. The new 4GS and 5GS sacrifice load space so are not true GT cars and also arguably are not as refined in the drive as a normal auto (Having lived with the CVT for a while, I still prefer the auto, but the CVT is an efficient means of power transfer and has other advantages). You pays your money and makes your choice but test drives won't tell you the strengths of the RX as it takes longer to adjust to its driving style. I find that I get from A to B much more relaxed than I did in my GS, yet it offers substantial shove when needed for overtakes, and I wouldn't be without that load space anymore, whether for tip runs, transporting luggage, sports gear, my work stuff or whatever else. The F-Sport for me was different enough from the Luxury models to recommend it in handling, more instant shove and more useful toys, so is a different enough driving experience to say it's a better all rounder than just about any other Lexus vehicle, just bear in mind its size when choosing and you won't regret it.

That sounds like they have included the tips as the exhaust standard price (parts only) is about £580. Lexus Birmingham seem to give the cheapest price for just about any Lexus spare compared with the rest.

That is unusual but my take on it is this: The standard Lexus exhaust, compared with may after market-type replacements I've had over the years, seemed to be thicker and better made, therefore, I'd expect more life from it than from the usual mild steel offering. However, 10 years would be what many regard as a reasonable life because there are so many variables to exhaust life. It is mileage dependant as well as environment dependant, and the rate of external to internal corrosion will vary depending on both external environmental and internal conditions. For the same given bore, as engine capacity rises, more moisture is produced per square cm of silencer end bore than for a smaller engine, and this also has to be borne in mind for internal environmental conditions. Looking at the photos, it does seem that most of the corrosion is internal, causing a weakness that has resulted in a shear failure and a clean break. If the car has regularly done shortish trips where the exhaust hasn't had the chance to heat up enough to burn off the water formed as part of the combustion cycle, and this has left the internal steel with a mixture of corrosive by-products of combustion, combined with a high moisture content, then 10 years would be a perfectly reasonable life for the exhaust. I have had cars which have been on their original exhausts over 10 years, but few have made it much past that without needing a new back box, as the expansion chamber and the fact it's the end of the box mean it's the coolest part of the system and this is where most of the moisture will cause issues. Even if the car has regularly done longer trips and had few short trips, 10 years, commensurate with mileage is also pretty reasonable for just a back box, although I'd expect one doing longer trips, but perhaps not daily, to last longer, up to 15 years or so for a Lexus system. It looks like there's insufficient steel thickness to do a weld repair, so a new exhaust seems to be the only option. Given that the car is 11 years old, I would doubt that even Lexus would see that as anything other than fair wear and tear. The exhaust is a consumable, like tyres, just with a longer life-span. You may be able to get some sort of compromise, as I did with another claim on my GS, if you argue, that given the original quality of the exhaust, it seems unreasonable for it to break there after 11 years, but that you are willing to pay the parts price if they waive the fitting costs, as after all, they'll make that up and more if you stay on as a valued Lexus customer. In my case, with my claim for TPMS valves, this is exactly what they did and I didn't have to pay labour for fitting or coding the valves which saved me over £100. That's the best that I would expect tbh.

Funky.....very different in flavour to the CT.

That pricing sounds about right. Make sure it includes the fitting kit though, and that the chrome tail sections are swapped over from old to new exhausts or that bill will rise quite sharply! I found the invoices for mine. The exhaust was about £583 and fitting was £72 = £657 all in.

I think that some folk expect too much of a large 2.2 tonne SUV on mixed trips in cold climates. Even the large diesel ones don't do more than mid 30's at best to the gallon (despite manufacturer's claims) and you can't really compare with a car weighing in at 3/4 tonne less with less rolling resistance which, given the same engine and drive train will always have a 10mpg or more advantage. To compare with some past cars that I've owned, in equivalent driving conditions, my 325 BMW 6-pot petrol managed between 24 and 28 mpg average, my Volvo S60t 5 pot turbo petrol managed 22mpg (28 on a run if I was lucky), my S60D5 would do 45mpg on a run and high 30's or low 40's mixed, but the XC90 using the same engine was a good 10mpg down on this due to mass and frontal area. It's just physics. The plug in Mitsubishi mpg figures are false because they do not account for the fuel burnt at the power stations that charges them, and run purely on their under-powered 2 lite engines wouldn't fare very well at all given their 2 tonne mass. Achieving high 20's in a petrol engined 2 plus tonne SUV isn't bad going and when the weather warms up, that figure should be into the 30's.

If you check out the Warranty Direct Reliability index, the S-Class comes in with an appalling score of 324 (rated "Poor") with an average time off road over 4.6 years of 2.5 hours with an average repair bill of almost £450 with a majority of the problems being related to suspension, axle and engine problems. By comparison, the RX scores 68 (rated "Good") with an average time off the road over 5.2 years of 2.2 hours and an average repair bill of £439 and a majority of issues with heating or cooling system issues (although you wont find many of those issues on a 3RX or a 4RX looking at other reliability surveys). It's a fair bit more reliable than a Mercedes S Class, which used to set the standard back in the day (not any longer). Lexus were rated 6th overall and Mercedes 30th overall. The Volvo XC90 rated poorly in this index coming in with a score of 198 (Poor), the Kia Sorento, surprisingly didn't fair a lot better with a score of 148 and the BMW X-5 rated at a bottom basement 244 with big average bills and 2.75 hrs off road. The RX450 does very well compared with most of it's competitors. Hyundai also do very well, but their equivalent SUV doesn't really compete in this class, ditto Mitsubishi (which in the reliability stakes matched the Kia Sorento), making the RX one of the most reliable and dependable SUVs available today.

You'll get about the same in colder weather, more on a long run and more in warmer weather. My best over the past 3 weeks in cold weather was 37mpg on a longish run and an average including a lot of stop-start motoring, short runs and town work (from cold where the EV wont work until the engine warms up) is about 28mpg. Those are honest figures. Even if you took a low 32mpg average, that gives a pretty good 435 mile range. Real world mpg from something like an XC90 wouldn't be much different but you'd be spewing more particulates into the atmosphere and down the line would be looking a PDF and DMF replacements at some stage, both of which are far from cheap. Also, most spanners now advise that diesel EGR valves are cleaned at the annual service to avoid loss of efficiency, problems with injectors and gummed up inlet manifolds. You get none of these issues with the RX450h. Boringly, you just put petrol in it and drive it.....for many years....in total comfort

According to the Lexus mechanics's I've spoken to it's very rare indeed. Consider this. If you've owned a 400h for 10 or more years and it's never gone wrong, would you feel the need to come onto a Lexus forum and start a thread about your inverter still working? If you have suffered a failure, you're far more likely to post something in the hope of finding a cheap fix. Point is, you will always hear more horror stories on forums than success stories, and comparing this site to say the Mercedes owners club, or Volvo for that matter, it's plain to see that Lexus are a much less reported brand when it comes to reliability problems. All an inverter does is to convert DC to AC (either by an electronic switching and smoothing circuit or via a torroidal transformer and electromagnetic switches) and a by-product or efficiency loss of doing this is heat, which is one reason you have cooling vents under the rear seat, to help cool battery packs and inverters. If they become blocked, then there's a chance of failures due to overheating but as long as they are kept clear, a simple inverter ought to work for many years trouble free.

If your car is equipped with the TPMS system, you may not be able to swap fronts with rears because the valve sensors will be coded to each specific corner of the car (they were with my GS). If this is your first RWD car, it's just likely that you need to get use to it. Change of gradient (up or down) and a wet, tight corner usually means low grip section of road, along with adverse cambers. If it doesn't do it on flat corners or in the dry, I'd just get used to it but as mentioned, check tyre pressures before anything else. Under inflated tyres can cause excessive roll in corners and this can also lose you control as well as over inflated tyres which will reduce (not increase) grip levels, especially when cold and damp.

Tyre grip isn't always about tyre width! That's a bit of an urban myth, because grip is = force =pressure x area, and depending on a car's weight, driving wheels and axle loading, sometimes width isn't everything as grip is derived from tread pattern deformation (ie the heat generated from the tread (not the sidewall) deforming under torque, vertical loading or cornering forces. The point at which width becomes relevant to move up to a wider profile is when 1) cornering forces over-stress and overheat the tyre tread, or 2) when torque and acceleration forces overheat and over-stress the tyre tread. In both cases, a loss of grip will occur. However, there comes a point, especially in the wet, where loss of grip can go hand in hand with wider tyres which don't have sufficient pressure generated over the tread area to overcome some of the loss of friction of wet conditions. I have driven the IS300 in the wet and wouldn't say it generated as much torque low down as say our diesel vRS which outputs maximum torque from not that far above tickover! We can drive that in the wet without losing traction, albeit that is fwd. There are other things that it could be. When you lose grip in the wet, you say it is worse on a corner, especially of up-hill or down hill? In each case, you are either loading the suspension and asking for traction, or slightly unloading the rear on drive (downhill where some force is transmitted to the front axle) but loading it in lateral motion, whilst applying torque from gentle throttle movements. It is possible that your wheel geometry could be slightly out, which can cause break of traction sooner than expected, especially in the wet, or simply that with the combined mass of the rear axle loading, cornering and acceleration force, tyres are being overloaded. I would just have a look at the suspension before drawing too many conclusions. If the suspension is fine in relation to geometry, then suspension stiffness, combined with the heavier axle load of a hybrid might, combined with electric torque, take more getting used to and care in the wet.

I looked at Mercedes, Jaguar and Volvo when looking to replace my GS. The RX is better built than any of them with better panel alignment, and higher quality interiors and more comfortable than the Merc at any rate. The only Volvo which comes close for comfort and toys is the top spec XC90 which is a good vehicle, but is an oil burner which I didn't want. The only Volvo with an interior to match imho is the new V90 which is very impressive but fashion and design have limited it's rear load area height which was a deal breaker for me. I'd say that the V90 redefines interior comfort and build quality it's that good, just a shame that the car is more an exec load lugger (ie designed for golf sticks and a suitcase) rather than a true family car. Stick with the F-Sport or (3RX) Advance if you don't need or want the complicated extra toys or air suspension worries.

Really nice job on the wheels. I was going to use the same company to do my GS, but ended up going with Glevum Alloy Wheel Repairs in Gloucester, who do the same job (back to parent metal, condition the wheels by taking care of any damage, then prime, powder coat, bake and polish) and were a bit cheaper. I think I paid £340 including VAT all-in. They come out and take the wheels away, leaving the car chocked up, so that it looks like a floating space ship from a distance!

I guess something like RG2 or a HM point Alloy/Zinc grease should be ok in that case.

No, but the Silicone Dioxide based sealants offer good resistance and extra protection against chips, scratches and swirl marks, and it's this type of coating that Lexus are offering (in my case) for over £500, which is pretty excessive. There are companies that do it professionally, but by the time their labour costs are covered, it's about £280 to have done, perhaps a little more. Of course, none of these coatings will protect against a supermarket trolley bash or a large stone pinging off your bonnet at 70mph, but you wouldn't expect that. Chip insurance is something different to sealant and standard paint protection insurance, which from Lexus does not cover stone chips. I have the document quotations here open in front of me. That's on an additional stonechip and paintwork protection insurance, not the stand alone paint protection (paint sealant) policy which also covers interior leather protection (application of stain resistant coatings and leather conditioners). Good point RE the PCP, and from that point of view, the extra chip and minor paint/body damage insurance is worth taking out. There is a "but" though. If you have fully comprehensive insurance, check the excess. In my case, it's a protected no claims with an allowance for several claims within the policy period and a low compulsory excess. If you have this type of fully comp insurance, you can claim for uninsured damage by others or your own accidental damage, and the cost of the repairs may be less in excess than than taking out the extra protection insurance plus won't affect your no claims.

Yes, absolutely correct. I was referring to any outstanding damage (ie the boot lid not closing and the obvious panel gap) meaning he's legally entitled to a repair. Yes, a Cat C or D has to be disclosed, not minor repairs. A full inspection, given the things that have cropped up, would be wise and give peace of mind if nothing else. Some garages offer a 7 or 14 day "cooling off" period, within which you are entitled to a refund if you change your mind about the car. Our last car was bought with this cooling off clause in the contract of sale. That is usually verbally spelt out at the time of sale.

Your statutory rights are not affected. If that car was in an accident which they later failed to disclose, you may be entitled to your money back if you'd not have bought the car knowing it's history in the first place. If you are not happy with the car, and there is a problem with it, it's the commercial seller who needs to be sorting those problems out for you and offering a full explanation. If they refuse, I'd be tempted to get a full inspection done for peace of mind, and if it throws up the it has been subject of a poor repair, I'd most certainly be looking for my money back under my consumer rights (Sale of Goods Act), or a satisfactory repair. Up to you really, but I'd not be happy in your shoes and leave it back for them to repair and to offer an explanation for that panel fit issue.

Check out ALA; they'll provide GAP insurance much cheaper. Find an insurance company that has a low voluntary excess and protect your no claims. That'll be better than paying the cost of a minor damage insurance which'll cost you the same as the compulsory excess anyway. As for body cover and protection, don't bother with it. Clean your car, polish it, and apply some sealant such as Carlack68, Sonax Premium or CQuartz-CQUK and save yourself a fortune.