First_Lexus

Having made the switch to a new Toyota CH-R after two Lexus NX300h and a 450h, I thought I’d post some of my thoughts here (similar to a post I made on the Toyota forums). I’ve now had my own CH-R Excel for just over two weeks, and a Design courtesy car for a week prior to that while mine was being prepared. I thought it might be interesting to articulate my initial impressions after a few miles, and having downsized from my 2021 Lexus RX 450h. First, the good. I’m very happy with my choice, and the downsize hasn’t shown as many compromises as I feared. I now only complete 2-3k miles each year, so a smaller car was a sensible switch, but even so I did love my RX and did approach the change with some trepidation. I needn’t have. The interior quality is excellent (mainly). The technology works well, and I like the touchscreen vs my previous Lexus ‘trackpad.’ The drive is also very good, being quiet and refined. I’m actually surprised at how quiet the car is, despite a long test drive some months ago. It is largely very impressive (but more on that later). The dealer did try and convince me to drive the 2.0 litre CH-R first but, knowing how limited my mileage was going to be, I decided to try the 1.8 instead. As it seemed perfectly adequate I went with that. It’s no ball of fire, but I value refinement and smoothness more these days and I find it perfectly acceptable for my needs. Equipment levels on the Excel are also good enough for me. I’ve lost ventilated leather seats and a HUD - neither of which bother me. I have also lost an opening glass roof which is a shame. I’d have preferred the option, but it is what it is. A heated steering wheel should also be included imho. I must also comment on the quality of the switchgear - indicator stalks, buttons, steering wheel etc. It really is very good and gives a real impression of being well designed and nice to use. What don’t I like so much? I would have preferred a rear wiper, but don’t find it too problematic. I would also have liked ‘dipping’ mirrors as I’ve said on another thread. Yes, I know I have 360 degree cameras, but to this driver it’s still easier to place the car when reversing with the simple old school dipping mirrors that I’ve had on every car for twenty years plus. I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but even so - simple sometimes just works better! The dashboard reflects in the front windscreen quite a lot, which is a bit off-putting initially. I did say interior quality was impressive - and I think it is - the exception being the rear door cards which are pretty cheap in comparison with the front. Hardly the end of the world, and common to other cars I test drove, but seems to be a bit unnecessary to me. I guess the savings over thousands of cars all add up. Generally the car is very quiet on the move, but the Design spec courtesy car I had was quieter. I can only assume it’s down to the tyres. My car has Bridgestone Turanza, whereas the courtesy car had Falken. I have to admit that Falken have been my brand of choice for years, being a great balance between price and performance, whereas Bridgestone haven’t been so good on previous Honda cars. I’ll be looking to change them to all season tyres after a few months. Last thing. I’d have preferred a rear parcel blind rather than an old fashioned shelf. But that’s a proper ‘first world’ complaint! Overall it’s a solid 8.5/10. I really like the CH-R, and am comfortable that I made a good choice. I do miss the Lexus, but not as much as I thought I would. The biggest compromise isn’t the power, or the space, and certainly not the quality as the two cars are remarkably similar in that regard. The biggest compromise is ride quality, but even then the Toyota isn’t bad in comparison with its peers, just in comparison with the RX.

If I write a compare and contrast, even at this early stage, I’d say the conclusions are pretty obvious…but here goes. If I compare the CH-R with the LBX/UX 250h; - the Lexus dealer ‘experience’ is far superior, but then again I’ve read some dissatisfied customers on these forums so accept it is very dealer specific. In my case I bought three cars from Lexus Swindon (Fish Bros) and bought my CH-R from Fish Bros Toyota Swindon. The two dealers are a few hundred yards from one another. The difference is stark but, having said that, the Toyota dealer was fine. Not great, not terrible, just ok. They’ve managed to deliver the car with rubber floor mats in the boot from the previous model which don’t fit. I mean…really? 🙄🤔😂 - the Toyota is a LOT cheaper than the Lexus equivalent. At face value the difference doesn’t seem so great, but factor in larger discounts, lower rate finance deals and more equipment (model for model) and it all adds up. My CH-R Excel will work out about £4k cheaper over four years than an LBX with similar equipment, and even more against a UX (now 300h) which although it has a bigger engine is also well over the £40k threshold. - over my time with Lexus - 2xNX300h and my RX 450h - I’ve considered that interior quality has declined on the newer models. That’s my opinion based on my experience. Meanwhile, Toyota seem to have really upped their game. The CH-R interior is quite ‘premium’ in most places, but not everywhere. In common with the UX the rear door cards are especially disappointing. But there’s the thing…”in common with the UX.” Is a Lexus interior ‘posher?’ Yes. Is a Toyota interior a nice place to be these days? Based on the CH-R, also yes…and that’s coming remember from somebody who has just changed from an RX. - I may be wrong with this next one. The CH-R is based on the new Prius platform the dealer tells me. That is a more modern platform than the UX and the LBX is based on the Yaris Cross a class below. Having driven all of the cars before choosing, the CH-R did drive ‘better’ from my perspective. It felt far more nimble, steered more sharply and rode just as well as the UX and better than the LBX in my opinion. My conclusions? The Lexus has a better dealer experience and posher interiors. The Toyota is significantly cheaper but also quite nice. I mean, we all knew that already, right? 🤣🤣🤣

Fortunately I still have heated seats - that really would have been a deal breaker!

…had it not been for the Canbus theft issue I might have done, but insurance costs were getting far too high for the RX along with the worry, and there’s actually a lot to be said for a smaller and more nimble car for urban use. Tbh the RX was a bit of a pain on narrower local roads and in local car parks. Without the longer runs it just wasn’t in it’s natural environment - it was like a lion caged in a zoo…

Well then, that’s that. RX has gone and new CH-R collected today. I will miss the RX. It was fabulous. But things change, and the CH-R seems very good so far. It’s fair to say the Toyota ‘experience’ wasn’t as ‘premium’ as with Lexus, but it was fine. I felt more like ‘just another customer’ with Toyota, and some of the little things are crazy. Never once was I offered a cup of tea at the dealer, despite buying a brand new car. The owners manual/service booklet comes in a cardboard sleeve rather than a leather/leatherette wallet. However, the car itself is really impressive and the compromise having left an RX450h for a 1.8ltr CH-R isn’t as big as you might expect. It’s a quiet car even on the motorway - albeit not as quiet as the RX. Spec is good even on this mid-range model, with 360 degree cameras, glass roof, plenty of safety tech and a very large and responsive touch screen. I’ve lost ventilated seats, the head-up display (no loss!) and the heated steering wheel (which makes me sad…). Anyway, I’ll stick around here to update occasionally when relevant. Thank you all for a great forum experience over the last eight years. Ed

I’ve had three new Lexus from Swindon and they’ve done the same every time. Great service making the whole process simple and pain free. Just going through the exact same process with Fish Bros Toyota in Swindon - essentially the same dealership - and they don’t do the same! I’ve had to organise my own private number plate swap etc. Infuriating it may be, but shows the lack of consistency is even more bizarre than just across different Lexus dealers!

You don’t have to listen too carefully to hear the screech of brakes and metal colliding to realise you’re watching a huge car crash…

I don’t agree politically with virtually anything John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and those on that wing of the Labour Party believe in. Not now anyway. However, I do believe they are sincere, and generally honest, unlike ‘new’ Labour whether that be Blair, Miliband, Mandelson, or Starmer. As for ‘shifting position’ we all have a political journey. As a student I mainly studied Labour and the left, civil rights movements in South Africa, India and Rhodesia, as well as European Union treaties and systems (EC as was) and US political history post Civil War. Fair to say, like all students should be, that I was ‘right on.’ Free Nelson Mandela. Resist student loans. I briefly met Tony Benn, still a hero of mine, and also Barbara Castle completely by chance. She was delightful company on a train I happened to get onto, really lovely and very interesting to speak with. She was also - whether sincerely or not - seemingly very interested in my political views. Given my studies and her part in Labour history it was a bit like my equivalent of meeting a pop star! My Father was an ‘old school’ Conservative, and had been a party doner. He was a member of what David Cameron called the ‘tie and blazer brigade.’ He told me I’d grow out of my left-wing phase, and he was right. He hated Margaret Thatcher, instead looking back to the golden age of titans like Macmillan, Anthony Eden and others. Anyway, along with adult life, the world of work, a mortgage and all that jazz my politics shifted. I have always considered myself a traditional Liberal, and over the years I’ve voted Labour, Liberal, Alliance (remember that?!), Conservative, Green (yes, really) and even UKIP in specific circumstances. Where do I think I am now? Still a liberal, probably slightly right of centre on most things but left of centre on others. I want to live in a tolerant and inclusive society, and I value meritocracy in terms of opportunity. I’m happy to pay slightly more tax if - and only if - I believe that money will be properly and sensibly spent. I’m not holding my breath on that one tbh… Anyway, that’s my political journey from awakening to now. Almost forty years of different opinions at different times. I think that’s how it should be.

^^ Labour Party membership for those who have retired is £2.88 pm so your £12 pa could discount it even further…😁

I’ve used the word before on this thread, but from a Labour Government, and one that was so adamant they’d be ‘corruption free’ to dissolve into this after only 8-12 weeks in power is disappointing for so many people. Perhaps not a surprise to those of us who’ve been around for more years than we’d care to mention, but trust has certainly been broken for many voters who lent Labour their vote this time. Jess Philips was no better with her ludicrous attempt at defending this debacle yesterday. She said she’d “…not received one message from a constituent…” about this scandal. John McDonnell on the radio this morning was pretty acerbic about that comment. Words to the effect, “…I’d never call a fellow MP a liar, but she must have very different constituents to me and other colleagues I’ve spoken with…” which was followed by the presenter saying, “…or perhaps her email is broken.” 😂

Agree, this is the wrong fight and shows either an arrogance or a stunning naivety. Actually I think it’ll be scandal that gets him. The problem with such public pronouncements about being without fault is that your own greed and incompetence comes back to bite… https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-declares-gifts-and-freebies-totalling-more-than-100-000-the-highest-of-any-mp-13217287 Sky News spent a good ten minutes on this story yesterday evening when it broke - a bit too late for the newspapers today but the weekend might be pretty brutal ahead of Labour Conference next week. Sky noted that even ‘Starmer loyalists’ were starting to distance themselves from him over this, and Sue Gray was firmly in the firing line (formally ethics advisor, what a farce). Funny thing though. The BBC news hasn’t really covered the story. How very strange…🤔

I suggest everybody looks up their own MP in the Register of Interests. This is the page for my MP who, let’s face it, is likely on a 5 year fixed term contract rather than an enduring role… https://members.parliament.uk/member/5337/registeredinterests

^^ I find it fascinating that politicians can clearly see such issues when they are in Opposition, but once they get into power the money, expenses and ability to ‘bend’ rules for their own financial benefit makes them blind. I’ve already noted how large sections of the media continue to fawn over Starmer’s fantastic ‘judgement’ as well as his ‘ethics’ and even ‘messianic destiny’ (Andrew Marr, what were you thinking 🤣). It’s that ‘my father was a toolmaker’ claptrap again. However, it’s becoming clear that his judgement is poor. The Winter Fuel Allowance has created a storm I don’t actually think he thought would be this severe. I’ll bet Labour thought this would be a couple of days of noise, then it would be forgotten. That’s poor political judgement. Then there’s the cronyism allegations, following on so rapidly from gaining power promising to ‘clean up’ politics. That’s poor political judgement too, and shows a level of contempt for both the truth and the electorate. Next, the donations used for his clothes and those for his wife. How on earth did he expect the public to react to an entitled and wealthy couple taking money like that while at the same time cutting the WFA for pensioners receiving a state pension as low as £11,500 a year? That’s poor ethical judgement. On this subject, fair play to Labour MP Rosie Duffield, who posted on X the story that Starmer may face an investigation over this issue with only the word ‘Change’ as her heading. Bravo! I could go back to his poor moral judgement at holding a pizza and beer event while COVID restrictions were in place. Anybody with a moral compass can see that event wasn’t really necessary - PR people like to speak about ‘optics’ - but Starmer did it anyway, evidently considering himself untouchable. He got away with it, but it was still questionable judgement. Finally, the recruitment of Sue Gray. That’s poor ethical judgement, as she - and Labour officials - broke Civil Service policies and standards. She would likely have been sanctioned but left the service to join Labour. I’m afraid that, rather than the boring and stable Prime Minister we were told we’d be getting, we’ve instead got a liar with judgement at least as poor as others in recent history. He himself said that Boris Johnson had “…an uncomfortable relationship with the truth.” Karma is a funny thing, Sir Keir…🤔😂😇

If we consider what Labour have done in their, admittedly very brief, time in office so far and compare with what they said in Opposition and during the election campaign, then I think we get our answer. - in Opposition, Labour admitted they expected to inherit the ‘worst fiscal situation since the war’; - in Opposition, Labour spoke about taxation in traditional Labour language. They said they’d protect ‘working people’, they spoke about windfall taxes on energy companies, non-doms, large corporations such as Amazon paying their ‘fair share’, banking bonuses etc. The electorate liked that, and there was a perceived difference between that approach and the Conservatives; - in Opposition, Labour said they’d restore ‘public service’ in Government, and would behave ethically and morally. They said they’d end ‘cronyism’ and scandal, and would deal with offences within their party swiftly if discovered. Let’s now look at three months of their Government; - the very FIRST THING they did, was claim surprise at the fiscal situation and target pensioners. Not the wealthy people they spoke about previously. Not the large corporations. Not even non-doms. Pensioners. That first statement is what will stick in people’s minds, and will rightly be used a a stick to beat Labour with for the next five years. I believe it was a significant miscalculation, but not one they can step away from without reminding the electorate about all their prior talk about Conservative ‘chaos’ and u-turns. Opposition is easy. Government is difficult; - turning to ‘cronyism’ they didn’t even have the sense to wait for a bit! Clearly believing the population to be incredible stupid, they gave Civil Service jobs to donors and supporters, and Lord Alli received a Downing Street pass. The signs were there for those willing to look, Sue Gray breaking the Civil Service code to go and work for Labour being exhibit A; - public service? This morning we hear that not only has Keir Starmer had his clothes paid for by Lord Alli, but his wife too…except his wife’s clothes weren’t declared. Ah, it’s just an oversight, nothing to see here they cry - except that previous Conservative ‘oversights’ in similar situations led to Labour howls for their resignation. Even using the word ‘oversight’ is odd, as it’s the same word used by their opponents previously, and to me that shows they’re either very naive, incredibly crass or just incompetent. On the BBC this morning David Lammy even tried to suggest that Keir Starmer ‘couldn’t afford’ to buy his own clothes which would ‘represent the country’ effectively on the world stage. The mind boggles… - integrity? Putting aside the donor clothing funding scandal, we’ve already had a Labour MP who seems to be a dodgy landlord. Was he suspended? Reprimanded perhaps? Nope, certainly not publicly. However, vote against the Government and you’ll have the whip withdrawn. The bar for standards in public life obviously isn’t that high for Keir Starmer… I could go on, but it’s depressing. The previous Conservative Government was poor. People did want change. What I think we’re seeing is greater ‘buyers remorse’ than I’ve ever witnessed after an election. That’s down to trust and integrity. They promised much, and are already failing to deliver. They KNEW the public finances were compromised - they’ve admitted that - but they didn’t mention Winter Fuel Payments, or Council Tax, or any of the other things they MUST have been considering. In my experience with friends and colleagues, most simply believe Starmer and Reeves are liars. In the end, it’s as simple as that.

I wrote to my (new) Labour MP three weeks ago (majority c1300 so doubt we’ll have to worry about her after the next four years). I am yet to even receive an acknowledgement. I did write on a number of issues, mainly the ‘cast iron pledges’ she made on her election website which were (strangely) removed immediately afterwards, but I did include concerns about the Winter Fuel Allowance, and potential removal of Council Tax single person discounts, and planning, and her position on accepting hospitality… …I added the last one as you can see accepted hospitality on the Register of Interests (.gov site) as well as how your MP voted on everything, written questions, spoken contributions to debates etc. Why did I ask that specific question? Simply because in a local TV interview pre-election she said she’d only accept hospitality where there was a ‘local benefit.’ I’m curious to know how four tickets to the Community Shield at Wembley for her and three members of her family fit into that category…value declared, £2800. Snouts in the trough as soon as they get their chance. Shame. SHAME! PS she voted for the cut to WFA, like any good Starmer supporting Labour drone should. She won’t last here, that’s my one crumb of comfort.

Well worth a watch to hear the views of two seasoned political campaigners, although I imagine Ed Balls has some fascinating discussions with wife Yvette Cooper 😂

I was interested to hear Liz Kendall (Work & Pensions), during the debate, try to suggest that people actually voted for measures like this during the election as they wanted Labour to ‘fix’ the economy. That is particularly brave/foolish (delete according to your political opinion) and pretty disingenuous. If they believe people will forget this then I hope they’re sorely mistaken.

Parliament has - unsurprisingly - approved the cut to Winter Fuel Allowance. A lot of Labour MPs must have abstained From Sky News; The result of the vote is: Yes (to cancel the cut): 228 No (to approve the cut): 348 Majority: 120

Don’t mis-understand me, I’m no lover of the BBC and their (to me) obvious left/centre left bias. Gaza/Israel seems to be an especially problematic area for them. My point was more that Government uses stories/issues like that to put one group against another and deflect attention from other matters. It’s the classic ‘look over there!’ That isn’t to say these aren’t important issues, just that with the cost of living crisis, mortgage rates, small boats, the Truss debacle etc. the Conservatives clearly stoked the BBC ‘story’, along with others, in order to distract. Just my opinion, obviously. Starmer seems to be using similar tactics to solidify his support base, safe in the knowledge that those who are offended/penalised by his policies such as the Winter Fuel Allowance - which remember ‘only’ saves £1.5bn - are distracted from public sector pay rises and likely further attacks in the budget, on freedom of speech…I could go on but it gets depressing.

I’m not sure most on the (real) left would consider Keir Starmer or his Government as left-wing…🥸 I won’t post it here, but look up what the Momentum wing - represented through an Alexei Sayle poem - think of Starmer. On YouTube search for ‘I hate Keir Starmer Alexei Sayle’ and you’ll see what I mean. Genius 😂

I believe that the Coalition removed ‘final salary’ pensions from MPs, but that their current scheme is still (ahem) ‘generous.’ One thing that does irritate me, is this choice Labour have made between public sector pay rises and the Winter Fuel Allowance. It used to be the case that public sector workers were paid less than for similar roles within the private sector (as a general rule) but this was subsidised by state backed and generous pensions with more annual leave etc. For instance, did you know that many public sector workers obtain extra annual leave as their years of service increase (albeit capped), and that they often get their birthday as an additional day, as well as the birthday of the Monarch. I’m not joking… What Labour seem to be doing, almost certainly under pressure from their Union masters, is shifting this balance so that public sector workers will be seen to be getting ‘double bubble’ by those in the private sector who have seen pension provision decline while wages have also stagnated. As with other things, I do feel they are operating in a similar way to the previous Conservative Government. Then we saw artificially created ‘culture wars’ about various things including immigration, BBC bias etc. etc. Now Labour are creating new ‘culture wars’ between young and old, public sector and private sector, big state control and personal choice…sigh.

Now, this chap is very much on the left, but he does have a profile and expertise and has campaigned on tax and economic issues for years. Worth a watch for eight minutes.

I feel like I’m the voice of doom here, but… …as with the ‘Red Wall’ after the 2019 election, many new Labour MPs find themselves (possibly unexpectedly) elected in historically Conservative constituencies, and with small majorities of fewer than 5,000 votes. I can’t remember the exact numbers from the day after the election, but I think it was somewhere in the region of 100-120. I’m rather afraid that those MPs - one of which is in my own local constituency - have already realised that regardless of what they do, the chances are they’ll lose next time. The 2024 vote was a ‘vote for change’ but even a semi-competent Conservative Party will get back to at least 250 seats next time. In my view, that means that most of those Labour MPs are already thinking about what they do next, rather than thinking about representing their constituents. They’ll likely get as much out of the system as they can, while they can, and work to secure a nice post-Parliament job. As such I’m not convinced they really care about how their votes on individual policies look, as they’ll have already judged it makes little difference to their electoral chances next time, and so they’ll vote with the Government every time so as not to; a) rock the boat, and, b) spoil their chances of a well paid future job with a charity/pressure group/quango etc. I appreciate that’s a cynical view, but there it is.