It's slowest, as you would expect, in the automatic AWD version (there is no AWD manual). The RWD versions, both manual and automatic, aren't quite so sluggish.

 

Yes, per manufacturers published specs, the IS250 AWD 0-60 mph times are 0.4 second slower than the RWD auto & manual versions (8.3 vs. 7.9 seconds).

 

Though still evident with the IS250, traditionally slower 0-60 times for slushboxes are becoming less-common nowadays. Depending on gearing, final-drive ratio, computer-programming, and other factors, many automatics today (and especially computer-shifted dual-clutch auto-manuals) outperform traditional three-pedal manuals in acceleration, gas-mileage, or both. In some cases, so do CVTs.

I can understand Lexus staying with conventional manuals and automatics for the IS250/350 series, though. Unlike the 1Gen IS300 (2001-2002) automatic where the ECU had some shifting-quirks (even with factory-updates), the 2Gen IS trannies have been virtually bulletproof. So, there an old saying: If it ain't broke..............

 

It is NOT evident with IS250, the slush box is not slower.

The IS250 RWd in both automatic and manual configurations have the same 0-60 mph times. (see my post above for spec, both trannies at 7.9 sec)

 

Spongy brakes?? ... I don't agree at all...

Now the brakes on my mom's rx330 ... those are what I'd call spongy!

 

OK.....I see that your post was primarily comparing AWD vs. FWD times, not manual-vs.-automatic. It was a little unclear at first...I just misinterpreted it.

Actually, 0-60 times mean little to me, for a number of reasons. First, power isn't that important to me in day-to-day driving (although I don't mind having some torque if I need it). Second, so many different factors affect 0-60 times (you probably know what they are....I won't list them all), that it often doesn't apply to the circumstances you may be driving in.

 

The best IS would be a 2.0L with ecoboost type of boost.
Power-on-demand, yet light on the front wheels.

 

Yes. VW/Audi does a superb 2.0 Turbo four that can easily handle even the extra weight/drag of the Tiptronic, 4Motion AWD, and/or DSG, although the option-availability is not the same between the two makes. The torque on that engine, IMO, is under-rated. So, if VW can do it, I see little reason why Lexus, with the vast resources of Toyota behind it, couldn't. The 2.0 could either be a turbo in-line four or a small turbo V6.

 

Ford has also done a magnificent job with the ecoboost, and proven the reliability with their F-150.

 

While 0-60 time means little to you, for the more demanding and informed premium car buyers the times are meaningful for following reasons.

0-60 times allow an apples to apples comparison of available and usable power. Of course nobody spends a normal day doing 0-60 sprints, the measured times are used for valid comparison purposes only. The better published sources do these measured tests on proper tracks and the track conditions are identified, because they do impact times. That's why the better published sources do "comparison" tests for all the vehicles on same track under same conditions. But even then they still need to describe how individual cars are impacted differently by equal conditions.

 

Premium car buyers can be "demanding" in several areas, not just power and speed is only one of them. For instance, I bought my IS300 primarily for the overall quality, Lexus-service, and because I liked the chrome-ball shifter, chronograph-gauges, and butter-smooth engine, more than for the power level.

I'm on the mailing-list for several good automotive publications.....and, yes, I read them.

True, but with young men combined with HP and torque, it happens on public roads more than is healthy...and, to a lesser extent, with other classes of drivers. In my area, V8 Mustang jocks seem to offend more than with any other make of vehicle.

 

Very good points. Plus, when you are paying good money for a car, it's important to know the car's capabilities and what you are getting for your money.

 

Agreed. Some publications, though, are so sport-oriented, and focus so much on performance-related figures, that they lack in the area you just mentioned.....giving a good description of the car and what you get for your money.

When I write-up a car, for instance, I try and give a complete and thorough description of it from stem to stern. Since I'm often in brand-new, unbroken-in cars, I don't do extreme acceleration and braking.....you can get those figures (and handling/skidpad) from other publications, anyway.

 

Good to know you read these publications.

I won't dwell on stereotypes of young men and jocks, way too offtopic and another tired talking point.

 

Autoweek magazine used to publish a lot of my comments in the Letters and Fast-Poll sections. One salesguy at a local Honda shop, where I was reviewing one of their vehicles (I can't remember which one), recognized my name/address on the license and asked me if I was the local Marshall that had so many comments in Autoweek (Autoweek prints names and city/state, and he also read the publication regularly). I was, of course.

That was some years ago, though. Now, of course, many of my comments are saved for CAR CHAT....an even better group, IMO.


Agreed it's off-topic, and I won't dwell on it either, but it's more than just a stereotype. I've seen too many kids in Mustangs hurt or killed in this area....and too many grieving parents.