Bluemarlin

Good heavens Eric, you do like to present a moving target, don't you. One minute you're supporting ICE because you claim it to be superior technology (just because it's been around since the 1800s), and the next you seem to say that's not really your point, and it's more that you see electric as digital, and therefore part of a nefarious scheme to control us. Whether that's true or not, I can't see how they coudn't do that just as easilly with ICE vehicles. The location, control and monitoring electronics, that are being fitted to cars, work just as well in a petrol driven car as they do in an electrically powered one. In fact it would be far easier to just do that than have to create and push through legislation for electric cars. Additionally, why bother with a once removed device, like a car, when everyone (even children) has a mobile phone that can be monitored and controlled. It makes no sense. It sounds to me that your beliefs are the same as those always claimed whenever there's new technology. Here's how one might imagine an Eric of the 1800s: "This new technology of the internal combustion engine is just a scheme to exploit the ordinary people. Already we see the removal of the horse and cart as a cheap means of transport, as we're forced to buy more expensive cars, and run them on expensive petrol. It's a plot against the poor. The claims about horse manure polluting our cities are just a scam to rid us from the transport freedom of horses, as these new fossil fuels are just as polluting, but they're hiding that from us. Cars can be used to monitor and control us, as we're forced to fill up at dedicated stations, instead of just feeding a horse some hay. We're told that that these new fossil fuels will revolutionise industry and create factories that are able to mass produce goods that we couldn't previously afford, but the reality is that we'll see the disappearance of individual tradesmen, and workers will no longer be valued for their skills and only their labour. Already we're seeing farriers and blacksmiths disappear from the high street. And what's going on since Smallpox? Sorry, but you do need to mention it, it's been a trigger point for everything. Vaccination and quarantine is just a covert measure of government control, to get us to accept the new normal. Just you wait, I bet they'll start a couple of world wars soon, to help promote their agenda." You see Eric, I can take fossil fuels, tie them to Smallpox, the industrial revolution, WW1 & 2, and paint just as grim a picture about them as you do about electricity and renewable energy. I'm sure one could go back further and do the same for the agricultural revolution. In truth, these shifts did have downsides, as we adjusted to them, but they also brought huge benefits. Despite any fears of government control, the introduction of new technologies has continued to give people greater access to information, goods, services, healthcare and transport, that have given ordinary people freedoms and a voice that they could never have imagined possible a 100 years ago. Sure, to some degree we're still puppets, but one can just as easily argue that over time the strings are being cut, rather than added to. So, whilst I'm with you when it comes to having doubts and questions about the technological, financial, and even environmental benefits of some of the new ideas being proposed, you lose me when you appear to be using them as litle more than a trojan horse, to introduce claims of it all being some kind of global conspiracy to control us. Power to the people 🙂

Thanks Vladimir. I'm curious as what alternatives to lithium are being considered. I definitely think it would be a good thing if there were better alternatives for making batteries. To my mind batteries/energy storage are the key to everthing, and so if someone can crack that then it opens the door to a host of possibilities that go far beyond just powering cars. The issue of EVs going up in flames is also a concern, but if I'm honest I don't know enough about it, nor how much more likely they are to combust over an ICE car. It's true that it's not especially ecological, but the mathematics of how that balances against ICE fires, oil spills, lithium extraction penalties, as well as a host of other comparable factors, is at a level of complexity beyond the capabilities of me and my solar powered calculator 🙂

I think you're missing my point Eric. Electric cars were developed in the 1800s too, in fact I believe the first Porsche was electric. Then, and now, it was considered that electric was superior in terms of power, efficiency and maintenance. ICE only became dominant because oil was readily available, whereas electric was impractical, due it's need for a battery and the lack of sufficlent capability in that area. So, I'm accepting your point that at present lithium batteries may have issues in comparison to oil burning, and only saying that, fuel source aside, electric is superior to ICE on a number of levels, and hence the issue is with the batteries and not the motors. Yes, people die mining lithium, but then again around 100 people a year die on oil rigs, and many more are killed in wars and conflict over oil, so neither gets a clean bill of health when it comes to its extraction. You may well also be right regarding the automotive industry not being fully electric in 30 years time, I honestly don't know. I do understand though that many of the issues, including capacity/availablity, claim to be in part addressed by direct lithium extraction. Again, I guess it's something we'll have to wait and see. I'm not sure where you get your figure of half a ton of lithium in a car battery though. The battery itself may well weigh that, but it's my understanding that the lithium content is somewhere between 10kg and 75kg per battery. All that said, I understand and accept the concerns of yourself and others but, perhaps optimistically, believe that with sufficient motivation they can be largely overcome. Whether that's through better lithium extraction methods, alternative battery technology, or alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen, it's too early to say. I'd also add that, whilst I appreciate the passion for ICE cars, I can't help feel that relying on oil for so long, simply because it's readily available, has held us back from making progress in other areas. For a long time it's left us at the mercy of both corporate oil interests, as well as geopolitical factors. Whether moving away from it will ultimately be a good thing is impossible to tell, but searching for alternatives doesn't seem to be a bad thing either. Unfortunately though, to make that search worthwhile and effective, it requires an amount of forcing the issue. Like you, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, and can only hope that it opens the door to new technologies that we can all benefit from. Ultimately I think we're all on the same side, in that we want clean, sustainable, cheap and readily availablle energy. We only differ in how we believe that's achievable, and so personally I no longer believe that oil is the best solution. As to what that eventually will be, I have no idea. However, we're an innovative species that has always risen to challenges, and sometimes the best ideas can come from adversity.

My take on this, admittedly with limited knowledge, is that the issue isn't really ICE vs Electric, as it seems that Electric has always been technically better, and that it's about the fuel source. Oil is and has been readily available, but it's use is detrimental to the environment, whereas electricity, although having the potential to be cleaner, needs to be stored, and thus requires batteries. In turn those batteries require lithium, and there are questions about the cost, efficiency, safety and environmental impact of mining it. I'm not sure how genuine the complaints about lithium are, and how much is due to people just trying to defend ICE/oil, as the latter doesn't have a wholesome history either with regards to environmental, social, or political exploitation. That said, there are genuine concerns about lithium mining that suggest it provides little to no environmental benefit when all factors are taken into account. Here's an article that outlines some of those concerns: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/ On the flip side however, it seems that lithium mining isn't the only game in town, and it's suggested that direct lithium extraction might address many of the concerns about the environmental impact of obtaining lithium, as well as the costs and long term availability. Here's an outline of that: https://www.ibatterymetals.com/insights/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-direct-lithium-extraction-process I honestly don't know what the answer is. Logic tells me that electricity is by far the most flexible power source, as it can be generated in a variety of ways. Logic also tells me that its use for transport requires a sustainable, cost effective, environmentally acceptable means of storage. A pessimist mght say that lithium will be never be able to provide that, whilst an optimist might feel that it will ultimately be possible to produce lithium without the negatve impacts of current mining methods. My gut feel is that with political emphasis being in this direction, industry will throw sufficient effort and investment to come up with alternative methods in order to meet those needs. I guess we'll see in time. On a slight tangent, I read an article recently where a housebuilder claimed that, with renewable energy sources, they're not far off from building a house that could be run on £11 of energy a year. In the short term, renewable technology such as wind, solar etc, and the associated storage technologies, will assist countries in becoming energy independent, and less reliant upon importing fuels from potentially unstable suppliers. In the longer term, as these technologies are encouraged and invested in, they will continue to improve and costs will come down. If so, this may one day lead to not only countries being energy independent, but individuals too. I can't think of a greater freedom than being able to generate and store my own electricity. Granted that might require a political environment that favours the individual over big business and corporate interests, which may or may not occur but, what I do know is, that unless we invest in and develop those technologies, whatever the current motivations, it will never be a possibility.

Indeed. Technology and progress was at its peak in the 1800s, and since then the illuminati have continually eroded our freedoms with the imposition of indoor toilets, central heating, air travel, electricity, medicine etc. They even removed our freedom to die in unsafe work conditions, or keep slaves. Where will it all end? Seriously though, I have mixed views on EVs and the desire to eliminate the combustion engine. It may not be the best idea, or even the most helpful with regards to the environment. That doesn't mean that every ill thought out scheme is some kind of global conspiracy to control people, when it's just as likely to be a mixture of good intentions, mixed with poor decisons, based on politicians trying to chase votes by appearing to take action on climate change. For sure it's a mess, with a variety of arguments on either side, and no clear path to a consensus on what the future should look like. Yes, the rich and powerful have a greater ability to influence things, or at least shield themselves from the worst excesses of incompetence, but that's always been the case. Equally though, for all the claims about governments taking more and more control over people, there has never been a time when increasing numbers of diverse and historically marginalised groups have had more freedoms and protections. Being poor once meant you couldn't afford to feed and clothe your kids, let alone own a car, and now it means you can't afford Sky Sports, and have to finance your car instead of buy it outright. In the end it's a matter of perspective. The paranoid can take the facts and paint a picture of oppression and control, where the optimist might take those same facts and see progress, opportunity and hope. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. It's been said that there are some things you can't change, but you can change how you react to them. The world, or society, isn't coming to end, it's just changing, as it always has. As such, one can choose whether to live in a constant state of fear, frustration and anxiety, or to pick the battles you can win, take the rest as it comes, adapt and make the most of your life.

With all the communications technology in cars these days, I can see the day when two factor authentication and a text confirmation is needed to start a car.

For context I've just checked my service plan and, after discount, the costs are £275 for the interim services, £460 for the full, and £630 for the big one with spark plugs. I douby I'd save much (if anything) by using an independent.

Good points Linas. I was always led to believe that black and white thinking was a mentally dysfunctional process, and locking people up based purely on outcome is as black and white as it gets. To my mind, regardless of outcome, the most important factor is someone's motivation and intent. As such, I don't believe that it's right to put an otherwise law abiding person in prison for a lapse of concentration or judgment, or for making an honest mistake, even if it was careless. However, we live in a society that increasingly refuses to accept that accidents happen, and that we have to not only apportion blame, but severely punish the person that made that mistake. Whilst I don't believe that mistakes should always go unpunished, I do believe that we should take more note of the circumstances, so that we don't turn a situation with one victim, into one with two, purely to satisfy an unjustified need for blame or vengeance.

I agree that our system doesn't work in many cases. For the most part it's only a deterrent to the average law abiding citizen. The wealthy have both a sense of entitlement, and the financial ability to avoid consequences, whilst the criminally minded are either too stupid, reckless or impulsive to be mindful of them. In my view, harsher sentences may work adequately as a punishment, but have little affect as a deterrent, for two reasons. Firstly, when people commit a crime, they don't think they'll get caught, so it's not like they carry out a risk assessment first. Secondly, I read somewhere that the majority of people in prison have some kind of mental health condition, ranging from bipolar to a variety of personality disorders. These sort of disorders often result in people acting impulsively, without thought of consequence. Most also come from broken and or dysfunctional family backgrounds, often with a history of abuse/neglect. As a result, prison sentences are little more than a method of cleaning up a pre-existing mess, without doing anything to prevent the mess happening in the first place. Poverty of course plays a part, but there's an increasing number of boys being brought up without a positive male role model in their lives, which I believe leads to Dave's observation that there are more people willing to misbehave today than in past times. Absent fathers mean a single mother has to try and raise them, after which they're taught by mostly female teachers and, if they end up in the crossshairs of social services, are largely dealt with by female social workers. Whilst I don't believe that people should be forced to stay in unhappy marriages, I don't think much (if any) thought was given to the consequences of the effect on children when their parents separate. I don't know what the answer is. One answer might be to invest more in preventing crime and catching criminals, over locking them up after the fact, but that still doesn't address the root cause. So maybe more help should be given to children from such backgounds, with more support and encouragement for fathers to be involved in their lives, and incentives to hire more male teachers and social workers, in order to give them positive male role models. Either way, it's a lot more complicated than handing out heavier fines, and locking people up and throwing away the key. Apologies for my rant too.

I'd agree with Andrew, and would add that if you're going to stick with a dealer it's worth getting a service plan. I took out a 5 year one and got a 15% discount, so it doesn't really work out much different than using an independent. Although mine's over 10 years old I took out the 10 year plus extended warranty, which is available for up to 15yrs old and 150k miles.

It's possible, in that there's a maintenance mode that allows you to idle the engine while parked without it cutting out. I can't remember the process to set it, but a cautionary note is that it's only to be used while stationary and it's not be driven like that, so one would need to get the engine hot with a run first.

Am I undertstanding this correctly, in that when the coolant is topped up to full the coolant level drops to between min and max. However, once it settles halfway between min and max, then there is no further sign of coolant loss? If so then it just sounds as if the coolant is heating/expanding sufficiently to be expelled via the oveflow, and once it's got down to beween the min/max point then any expansion doesn't get high enough to get expelled. So, either it seems like the normal function of the expansion tank or, if there is a crack or leak then it will likely be at the top of the tank or filler cap. In the absence of any visible leaks, and no loss of coolaannt once it's between min and max, it may well be that the midway point is the normal level for the coolant to be.

Yes, but those damn cows eat the grass. Don't get me started on whales though, those climate destroyers eat plankton, which absorbs about a third of the CO2 we produce. Save the whale has a lot to answer for 🙂

Doesn't bother me personally, although I only ever use my fog lights when there's fog. What does bother me though is people who put on all their lights in rain or poor visibility and think that then enables them to drive faster than the conditions allow.

I believe you can get to it on the outside. Here's a link with some pictures and instructions: https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rx-2nd-gen-2004-2009/454203-roof-rack-removal-procedure.html

If the 12v battery has been disconnected or replaced then for some reason the hybrid health check can't be carried out fully. In such cases they need the car to be run for a period of time to reset things so that they can carry out the check. Similar thing happened to me after a new 12v battery and they asked me to come back after 500 miles, after which it passed the hybrid health check.

Haha, I like to play devil's advocate too. Sometimes because I enjoy the debate, but sometimes because I like to challenge my own views, and have them tested by people who may well know bettter than me. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that I'd rather find out that I'm wrong on something, so that I can correct it, than carry on in blissful ignorance. I can understand your perspective, as I was fortunate and came from a time when I had my first car (a hand me down) at the age of 17. Cars were relatively cheap to insure then, and to fix, and when I bought my second car at 19, another cheap one, I was lucky enough to enjoy a driving holiday across France into Italy. By the time my youthful irresponsibility resulted in enough points to start making insurance expensive my good fortune continued, as I was now in the realm of company cars. I was then able to enjoy the pleasure of new cars, free petrol, and no running costs for almost 30 years, with cars being welcomed everywhere. Happy days. So yeah, I get where you're coming from, and do sympathise. I'm sure the youth of today have many benefits I don't have, but in a lot of ways I don't envy them. Not only is driving prohibitive, but they can barely afford somewhere to live. I used to go to school with little more than my books and a pen in my pocket, whereas today's youth are walking around with a grands worth of technology on them. If I made a fool of myself then my friends might mock me, but today the world would see it online. I don't know what the answer is to either energy or environmental problems, but experience tells me that those with the money and power will make the decisions, and we can only either moan about it or hope for the best. Ultimately, the best we can do for ourselves is play the hand we're dealt, as we've little chance of shuffling the deck.

For my next oil change I bought this stuff on the recommendation of someone else: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185301905461 Haven't done the change yet, so can't comment, but £51 for 7 litres seems reasonable, and Opie oil are a reputable supplier.

I don't disagree with you Linas, I was just trying to look at it outside the scope of politics and emotion. For example, you asked why should we be the generation that pays and not the next one? Fair question, but in reality we aren't, this (or at least my) generation have largely had it good in the West. That said, what if things are at the stage that we are that next generation? At some point someone has to say that now is when we start to address things, so pehaps that time is now. Nor is just about saying why not defer it to a later generation. There comes a point where it's less cost efffective to defer, much like treating a bit of rust now is more cost effective than letting things rot and trying to repair the damage later. I don't know when that point is though. So, my point was more about practical, rather than political alternatives. You might be right regarding fusion, I don't know enough about it to know how realsitic that is. Equally, given that we're surrounded by sunshine, wind and oceans, it might be that renewables are the answer. Who knows, countries with an endless supply of sunshine might one day become major energy suppliers to the world. The political argument is in some ways a distraction, albeit an influential one, but the fact that opinions on that vary from goverrnments being well meaning but incompetent, all the way through to them being utterly corrupt, makes it a bit of a rabbit hole, and so serves little purpose, no matter what the truth of it is. Either way, if we accept that man's activities are causing damage, both in terms of pollution and climate, that will one day make it hard, if not impossible to survive, let alone maintain our current lifestyles in the West, then we'd have to accept that something has to be done. If a patient was suffering from lung disease, a doctor would tell him to stop smoking, not just smoke a couple less a day, in the hope that a cure will come along before he dies. Politicians don't have the ability to be that harsh, and instead have to try and balance just how much sacrifice they think people will accept, against how much might make a difference, all the while hoping that a cure will come along in the meantime. Corrupt or not, it's not an enviable position.

It would be funny if the EU did decide to delay it. I wonder how the Brexit vote would have gone if that happened and the UK remained wedded to 2030. How many would want to stuff that particular genie back in the bottle?

Fair comments Linas, but then what is the answer? We may wish to continue to live the way we do, but we have no god given right to live comfortably, no matter how much we might want to. What if air pollution is causing 7 million premature deaths a year (as I recently read in New Scientist), and what if climate change results in environmental issues that ultimately cost more, both economically and in terms of lives lost. If that happens then we'll have no choice but to change how we live. We may well pollute just as much anyway, but that doesn't mean it won't have harmful effects; so do we just accept that and worry about the cost of picking up the pieces later? Maybe the reality we have to face is that we do need to accept that our lifestyles have to change, who knows, not all realities are pleasant. I agree that the way governments are addressing these this things might not be the best way forward but, beyond just drifting deeper into the problems of pollution and climate change, what are the most viable alternatives?

There's a place in Maidenhead called UKTeknics, who apparently specalise in Toyota/Lexus. Never used them so no idea if they're any good or not.

How bad are the seats? If they're actually torn/ripped then obviously they'll need a proper repair. However, if they just look a bit cracked, there are products that will get them looking much better for little cost. My car is 12 years and admittedly the seats are in good shape, but I use the leather repair paint from the Furniture Clinic and the seats come up like new. It's quick to do and just requires cleaning the seat, applying the product with a sponge, and letting it dry. It only takes a few minutes a seat. They do other products if you need to repair any actual damage. They will colour match your leather if you send them a sample. It only needs to be about an inch square, and I found that if you pull out the front head rest there's enough excess on there. https://www.furnitureclinic.co.uk/leather-care-products/leather-dyes-restoration/leather-repair-paint

Wouldn't have predicted that sentence 80 years ago :):):)

The only way to auto open the boot is with the key or the button next to the fuel filler unlock button. I think some model variations could be set to open with a push of the unlock button, but I don't think that's an option on the SE-i.