LenT

Well it may be pre-MOT but I think I recall cars having two reversing lamps, but of course in those days they didn’t form part of the light cluster. Generally they were separate lamps slightly inboard on the boot lid. Mind you, even then I didn’t spend much time going backwards! Nowadays I suspect it’s done for stylistic and manufacturing economy reasons. The matching offside bulb being red and the fog lamp. Mind you, I can get a red LED replacement for that. Now if that helps to prevent someone barrelling into the rear one foggy day, that’ll be money well spent!

Finally got around to replacing the reversing bulb - which I found as useful as a means of guidance as the legendary Toc H lamp - with an LED equivalent. Another one of those “should-have-done-it-long-ago” moments. Having just the one on the nearside is never going to be ideal in the first place. And often I had to augment the feeble glow of the original with judicious use of the appropriate turn signal and a head out of the driver’s window. But now there’s enough light to have confidence in the reversing camera. No great problem fitting the LED, although the wedge base is nearly three times the original and did require some care with the contacts to get it fitting firmly. Now looking forward to spending more time going backwards. 😊

Heaven forfend, James. I was contrasting your attainment of a well-deserved moan-free state with those less fortunate without whose existence this thread would have ceased to be a source of entertainment many posts ago!

And yet there are others so generously supplied that they never stop. Life is so unfair. 🙁

I am not a great fan of mixing tyre types on different axles. Visually there are some subtle differences between the two tread patterns and there will also be differences between the compound mixes. The result may well be variations in handling - especially when cornering in damp/wet conditions on slightly compromised road surface conditions. Of course another factor will be the relative tread wear on each tyre. This comparison between the two Michelins might be interesting as it claims slight variations in wet road braking and when aquaplaning! https://toptirereview.com/which-michelin-is-better-primacy-4-vs-pilot-sport-4/ If I remember correctly, the general principle is to put the best tyres on the rear driven wheels - but I stand ready to be corrected!

I think he’s in danger of being Bard.

If one Mr. F Sinatra can warble away about “New York, New York” I see no problem with “lyrical, lyrical”.

I feel I should extend my own welcome, Jeff, to such an enthusiast as yourself. My Lexus was also ‘pre-owned’ for a couple of years before I got it. It was the first Lexus I saw and the only one I drove and I will concede that I used to invent shopping trips just for the pleasure of driving it! As for learning the sat/nav…good luck with that!

Is it possible you could send me some of what ever you’re having, John? 😊

I suggest the time to get worried is when you DON’T see a reflection in a mirror!

This took me back to the time when, as a lad, I bought a Lotus Elan and was rebuilding it. For some reason, I was doing this in the well-equipped garage of a casual acquaintance and self-styled car enthusiast. I had a workshop manual that I was working from. Having reassembled the engine block, head, cams and belt, my acquaintance came over to check the work and, pointing to the timing marks on the gear wheels, we had the following conversation. He said: “You’ve got that wrong. They should be adjacent!” ”They are adjacent.” I replied. ”No”, he chuckled. “Adjacent means opposite.” ”No, John. Adjacent means together.” ”Does it?” he queried. ”Trust me, John. I’m a writer. I’m supposed to know these things.” He was a really nice guy, but I often wondered what happened to the other engines he’d worked on!

The actual application of the various ceramic products is relatively straightforward. In fact it’s probably the simplest part of the process! As has been mentioned, it’s the preparation that requires a skilled, practiced hand and, for example, the use of specialist equipment such as dual action rotary polishers. Most - if not all - ceramic products will also require the use of infrared heaters after application. The great advantage of the end result is that the final effect is much easier to maintain than a wax finish and will last considerably longer.

Yes it’s an interesting thought. But I suspect that the additional time and labour is the deterrent. Modern paint finishes do remain soft for some time after application. So any application would have to wait for the curing process to complete. And then the paint finish would have to be inspected with a view to correcting any manufacturing imperfections, rather than sealing them in. Which is a labour intensive process. But the principle is surely right. Namely, the car will never be in a better condition as when it first arrives.

My Detailer used Modesta products, who claim an effective coating life of up to ten years for their top ceramic coating. Obviously this comes with all the usual caveats about using their maintenance products and so on. So all I can state with confidence is that it still looks as good as when it was first coated - a year ago! And it’s certainly easy to keep the finish to the same standard. Although, to be fair, not quite as easy as when I just ran it through the car wash. Were I buying a new car, given my experience, I would take it from delivery to the Detailer for a suitable coating package. I might even have the front wrapped as additional protection. Considering the total cost of a new Lexus, all this extra pampering doesn’t represent an outrageous extra cost.

While that may be broadly true, the top 1% of earners pay about 28% of the total UK tax income. The top 50% of earners account for about 90%. So it would appear that the people who are making the most money are already contributing the most in taxable income. Seems fair enough to me.

I’m sure that major manufacturers such as OSRAM will be running regular batch tests to establish the Mean Time to Failure rate (MTTF). Of course this doesn’t necessarily guarantee an individual bulb but it does establish a consistent performance level overall. Small companies may be cutting costs by not investing in such production controls; counterfeiters wouldn’t bother anyway! Of course another argument for a cheaper, but still effective, bulb could be that the vehicle gets so little use at night that the longer life expectancy is irrelevant. It may be that the main/dip bulbs only ever have to pass the MOT. In which case buying the cheapest bulb that will pass that test probably makes sense!

Auto bulbs are apparently among the most counterfeited products on the market. That’s why OSRAM - and I believe Philips - have security packaging that confirms their origin. I don’t know if the Lumro brand mentioned here offers the same security feature but - like Philips - the genuine article is manufactured in Germany. As it happens, Lumro and Philips headlamp auto bulbs have been the subject of a couple of low technology comparison reviews that I came across. By that I mean they’ve mainly been confined to comparison of estimated longevity rather than assessing the accuracy of the claimed lumen output, the technical control of the light distribution, the quality of the materials involved and the standard of manufacture. Nevertheless, it seems that the universal law of you-get-what-you-pay-for still applies. On that basis alone, the cheaper bulb would appear to offer about 30% less useful life. Of course this may be acceptable - if all the other parameters are also acceptable, which may be debatable. But one feature of a shorter bulb life is more frequent replacement. Some modern auto bulbs are absurdly difficult to replace. The manual for my IS250 provides instructions for every bulb except the main/dip - which is referred to as a dealer job! Personally, when it comes to such items as auto bulbs, I am happy to pay the price for a market leading brand - who after all also tend to be the technological innovators- rather than trying to save a few pounds when equipping a car for which I have paid many thousands. But as I say - that’s a personal view!

Aside from the use of gloop, I think you’re absolutely right. So apart from the ‘convenience of getting from A to B’ in the event of a puncture, RFs don’t seem to have that much going for them. But how common are punctures anyway? The last one I can recall having was decades ago and involved a cross ply tyre. The only tyre problems I have had for years involved a broken valve and a damaged side wall - neither of which, incidentally, would have been rectified by injecting anything. I wonder if RFs may be a third rate solution to a relatively rare problem?

Ooops! For the sake of historical accuracy, I should have typed ‘wheel rim on the tyre wall’. And it’s still not a good idea.

But what kind of repair kit would it be? Unless the sidewall is damaged, the RF is supposedly capable of being driven a few miles at reduced speed to a tyre retailer who can replace it or carry out a repair. If you use the gloop injector type of kit, them many (probably most) repairers won’t touch it. Approved repairers can use a plug-type repair if appropriate, but that can only be done once and in a specified area of the tread. And it’s not a diy option. Apart from anything else, I would think the days when I could get a tyre off a wheel with a couple of tyre levers and a mallet are long gone! Replacing an RF with a non-RF is also problematic because of the different handling characteristics occasioned by the stiffer sidewall. All in all you might be better off with a SpaceSaver spare to gain a little more time to source a replacement tyre. My tyre supplier is no fan of RFs. He maintains that the ride is firmer as the sidewall is less flexible, and the tyre is noisier as it transmits more road vibration. He also points out driving on a deflated RF actually means you’re running the tyre rim on the tyre wall, which is not a very clever idea. So even if you plug a hole in the tread, there’s no way of knowing what potential damage has been done to the sidewall. Interestingly a JDPower survey of 2013 claimed that drivers with RFs were getting an average of 5K less miles out of a set. And, as I discovered with my Goodyear Eagle Asymmetric 5s, not all the tyres in a range are available as RFs in all the sizes. Personally, I would avoid RFs and use a SpaceSaver. And then resign myself to buying a new tyre! But that may not be what you wanted to hear!

This is a very recent discussion on map updates. In my case, as you may see, I didn’t think the cost was worth it as I have an excellent Garmin system with free quarterly upgrades. Neither was I attracted to an alternative option - replacing the entire system. Basically the Lexus offering is clunky and tedious to use, and pretty much out of date when you install it. Why a Company that can source its in-car entertainment system from the likes of Mark Levinson but can’t find a respectable sat/nav is an automotive mystery.

“It’s at times like this that I wish I’d listened to my dear old Mum.” ”Why, what did she say?” “How would I know? I just told you - I never listened!”

You’re spoilt for choice, Rishi. I’ve always had BlackVue cameras but I doubt that any make already mentioned will disappoint. Much may depend on how many of the additional features that the more expensive products offer you really need. As has been mentioned, definitely go for a two camera setup. Also a powered supply system that enables the camera to work in ‘Parking Mode’ when the ignition is off. This can be either a Power Manager system or a separate battery. You’ll find many videos comparing different brands- BlackVue and Thinkware crop up a lot! As for installation, I thought this link might be useful. https://blackvue.com/installation-videos/ Most systems will be much the same.

Whether that proves to be a problem or not, we shall see. The car’s due for its MOT next week and by then I hope to have the dismal reversing light replaced with a substantially more effective LED alternative. This is certainly the basis of any claimed illegality. LED bulbs are not yet E-marked because they don’t meet the legislation that was originally drawn up in 1986 to regulate halogen bulbs. At that time no-one envisaged the possibility of a superior new technology simply slotting in to the old halogen unit. So for example, a filament-based stop light bulb was required to be a minimum of 15 watts. But that would be a ludicrous requirement for an LED. In fact more sensible legislation would be based on lumens not watts, as it’s the actual light output that really matters. However, the MOT situation has changed since January 2021 to include LED bulbs. Section 4.1.4 now states the following: “Existing halogen headlamp units should not be converted to be used with high intensity discharge (HID) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs. If such a conversion has been done, you must fail the headlamp.” This is a brand new update that seems to only focus on headlights. There are no mentions to fail other LED bulbs such as brake lights, tail lights or reversing lights. With no other mention of after-market LEDs in the MOT guidelines, all that is left is for them to check is that the beam pattern is correct and the colour of the light is predominantly white, white with a blue tint or yellow. Any good quality after-market LED bulbs will meet this criteria. As long as the beam pattern and the colour of the light is correct – then there is no reason an LED upgrade bulb will fail an MOT. (Autobulbs Direct – Jan 2021) Now there is an argument that such a bulb upgrade is a modification that must be approved by Insurers or cover will be invalidated. In the real world I can’t see this happening. If I had to claim because I drove into a tree, would my Insurers really demand that my reversing light bulb was examined in order to try and avoid liability? Surely the purpose of such actions by Insurers is to be able to factor in the additional risks posed by some modifications, over and above their previous cover. Hence modifications to suspensions might be cause for concern. But I would certainly be prepared to challenge the view that improving the light output of my reversing light increased any risk. On the contrary, it is surely a practical step to avoiding the possibility of a potential claim for damage.

Probably not what you want to hear, but I replaced my D4S bulbs with these OSRAM Nightbreaker Laser Xenarc bulbs which certainly lived up to their improved performance claims. In my case, one bulb served both main and dip. I would suggest that some auto bulbs are cheap for a good reason. Light output and duration are not the only factors. Cheap bulbs tend to suffer from less accurate manufacturing standards and this will lead to poor light control and - ultimately- less effective light on the road. I guess it’s a personal choice between what you might save and what you might lose! https://www.autobulbsdirect.co.uk/d4s-osram-night-breaker-laser-xenarc-next-generation.html