Bluemarlin

I'm no expert, but in my experience it doesn't make a huge amount of difference.

????

Wel worth considering if the condition is good and it's mechanically sound. I bought my RX 450h a couple of years ago for £10k and just under 100k miles, so it wouldn't concern me. Mine's a 2009, but looks and drives like new, so condition is what I'd be looking at, as well as service history. The RX 400h you linked to appears to have been welll looked after according to it's MOT history. Not sure how competetive the price is. Whichever you look at, apart from the usual checks, have a good look underneath, and at the sills and wheel arches for any signs of corrosion. There's bound to be a little surface rust underneath, which is ok if not too bad, but any on the bodywork could turn out to be an expensive problem. With both models, although less of an issue on the 450h, I'd check the front and rear carpets for any hint of damp. I'd also lift off all the covers in the boot and look at the boot floor, battery compartment, and any storage spaces for any signs of water ingress or rust. I was in the same position as you a couple of years ago and started by looking at the 300, then the 400h, but ultimately upped my budget a bit for a 450h. As I intend to keep it for a while it seemed worth it, as it's appears to be less prone to the corrosion and leak issues of previous models. Because of the latter I also wanted to avoid a sunroof and roof bars. It's also worth noting that for anything under 15 yrs old and 150k miles, you can get a Lexus extended warranty, which costs around £550 a year for the RX and is pretty comprehensive, and includes UK and European breakdown cover.

To add some balance, I should say that I don't regret buying one, as it was something I always wanted, and so was an itch I needed to scratch. I really enjoyed it while I had it, and in hindsight wouldn't have done anything different. Like they say, regrets are often about what you didn't do, and not what you did. Ultimately it's about how much you want it, and if you can justify the cost. Mine was an older one (1999) and to be fair was reliable enough to never break down on me once in the 10 years I owned it. Most of the expense came in things like brakes, suspension, and a recon transmission, as well as ever growing corossion issues. I think the newer ones were less prone to the latter though. As a used car, you get a lot of car for the money. There's no right answer unfortunately.

Funnily enough I went from an XK8 to an RX 450h and haven't regretted it. The XK was fun, but the grand tourer notion came from it costing a grand every time it went in to the garage. If you don't use it much then I'd offload it as quickly as possible, as the more it sits around the more it's likely to develop problems like corrosion, or things playing up. The Jag was certainly a nice car to drive, once you're in it, but the getting in and out got tiresome after a while, and so I much prefer just stepping into the RX. Since making the switch I wished I'd done it sooner as, apart from the lower cost of ownership, I also find the RX an all round nicer car to drive. I always wanted an XK but, much like they say about boats, my two happiest days were the day I bought it and the day I sold it.

I use super unleaded and get between 5-10% improvement in mpg. I used to use Esso E5 as that used to be ethanol free until a couple of months ago, but now any E5 will do.

Car looks in good shape from the ad, and appears to be well looked after from the MOT history. Price seems high though and I'd be looking at a 450h for that kind of money.

Depends whose cars it's on. When I'm parking I always try to park behind someone who has reverse sensors fitted 🙂

Personally I'd bite the bullet and go with 4 all seasons, to save the faff of changing. I suppose it does also depend on how much life is left on your winters, and what conditions you face. If there's a lot left in the winters then just run them through the winter and worry about what to do in the spring.

My view is that if a part is specified as a direct replacement for an OEM part, and not designed to alter the perfomance of a car, then it's simply a replacement and not a modification. My guess is that most insurers would take that view, if they even bothered to check. At worst, the ombudsman would likely overrule them if they didn't. If insurance companies want to nit pick with any meaningful purpose then they''d be better off directing their attention towards things like cheap tyres and brake components.

As I understand it the 12v battery is charged by the hybrid system, and so the ICE isn't used to charge it. In fact there's no alternator for it to do so. The iCE will kick in as required to charge the hybrid battery. The ICE is started by the hybrid system motor/generator, and so there's no traditional starter motor. The 12v battery is only used to fire up the hybrid system.

It's not always a conflict of interest, or a rip off. I have a good relationship with my local garage, who would rarely fail my previous car, and instead just give me a heads of anything that might become an issue next time. Presenty I use Lexus for MOTs, but mainly because I have service plan and extended warranty, but it's always worth having a friendly local garage for MOTs and ad hoc stuff.

I'd probably tell the dealer that I had £22k to spend, but would be open to going a bit higher if things like a 5 year service plan and roadside assistance were thrown in.

At least once more, when you add on congestion charging 😉

I guess it would be illegal in the same way that any software piracy is illegal. Why not just use Google maps or Waze? They're usually better than any manufacturer maps, and update on the fly for free.

You might be right, but then that makes me wonder why Nationwide have just sent me a letter offering 8% interest on a new savings account.

Sure, it's in government's power to reduce the tax on fuel, but that carries the knock on effects of reduced tax revenues. The real issue is OPEC deliberately limiting oil production to maintain higher prices.

I would agree with subscribing to a breakdown service, although I did use the goop once to keep me going when I got a puncture in Germany. You've also reminded me of another point about CrossClimates. Some dedicated tyre shops claim that they can't be repaired like regular tyres, and have to be replaced when punctured, although my local independent garage had no problem repairing it.

My default strategy for such things is to deal with the repercussions after the fact, rather than seek permission beforehand. However, the effectiveness of such a strategy rests primarily on two key pieces of information that I'm not party to. The first being your wife's tolerance level, and the second being your pain threshold 🙂

I'll be honest and start by saying that I'm not up on matters concerning the WHO, health regulations amendments and pandemic response measures but, as you asked, I've had a brief look at the video and read up a little, so will give my first impressions. Please note that to some extent I'm playing devil's advocate, for the sole purpose of airing any potential counter arguments to the concerns expresed, without being able to address the veracity of any claims made by either side. Firstly I'll say that it makes perfect sense to have some form of internationally co-ordinated strategy for any future pandemic, and associated health regulations. For better or worse, the WHO would seem to be the logical body to lead that. The key issue therefore is do we trust the WHO and, if not why not, and what do we do about that? The video quite rightly points out the fears and potential risks of trusting such a body, but provides little in the way of substance for its suggestion that deliberate harm would be caused. Of course it's possible that unintentional harm might occur through mistakes being made, which is indeed a valid concern. However, it fails to balance that concern against the harm that might be caused by not having an agreed co-ordinated stategy. It also claims that we have no democratic say over the proposals, and that is not strictly speaking true. We have as much democratic control as we do for most other things, in that the democratically elected goverments of each member state have to agree to any such proposals. Further, it seems that the WHO is largely a body of co-ordination, and that any regulations made are negotiated and ratified by sovereign nations. From the little I've read, it appears that whilst the WHO can make recommendations, it has no power to enforce them on member states, or override the decision-making authority of national governments. Ultimately then it seems, like many such things, there's enough complexity, misunderstanding and misrepresentation for people to read into it whatever they like. If you're inclined to believe that the WHO are plotting against us, you can cherry pick things that appear to support that. Equally though, you can take the view that the intentions are well meaning, whilst accepting that any such large venture might be vulnerable to mistakes or missteps. Personally I'm inclined to the latter view, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and so the biggest question I'd ask of those who think it's simply a nefarious way of exerting power over us, is this. In the absence of a centralised body to help co-ordinate a global health strategy and future pandemic responses, what alternative would you suggest? Like I said at the beginning, I'm not fully read up on it all, and so all I'm able to offer is an alternative perspective, which may or not have merit, due to my lack of knowledge of this specific subject. My comments therefore are largely limited to the mechanics that are common to many conspiracy theories, which often try to misrepresent things, or seek to assign an intent based on the theorist's own fears, biases and assumptions, rather than substantive evidence. I'll end though with a few links to fact checks that address some of the claims made about the health regulations and pandemic treaty proposals, which you can make of what you will. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claims-of-a-who-globalist-takeover-are-out-of-this-world/ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02018-4/fulltext https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-conspiracy-theories-about-the-pandemic-treaty/a-65982226 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220608-conspiracy-theories-cloud-pandemic-treaty-push https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138892

2 years ago Lexus gave me an advisory note about front control arm bushes, with a cost to replace of over £2k. Since then I've given them a periodic spraying of silicone lubricant and they haven't mentioned them in the subsequent 2 services.

Be aware though that Cross Climates can only be rotated front to back, and not diagonally, as they're directional tyres.

Fitting just rear sensors (without camera) isn't that expensive. On my last car I had them fitted by a guy who came round and installed them and colour matched them to the car. Cost was less than £150, but that was a few years ago. If you google reversing sensor fitting you'll find a selection of local suppliers.

If I recall that was the key difference between him and Dahmer 🙂

Oh I don't know. I think if you look hard enough it's possible that you might spot some subtle differences in the processes between the ears of the likes of say Jeffery Dahmer and Ghandi 🙂