Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

General Car Conversation

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-14-23 | 08:10 PM
  #4606  
AJT123's Avatar
AJT123
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,093
Likes: 246
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

Originally Posted by SW17LS
Our 98 LS400 was 0-60 in 6 seconds and it was fast.
Oh yeah, as soon as they bumped it up to 290hp with the vvti it became the fastest luxury car until the W220 came along with the 5.0 and even then it was close.

1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....

As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
Old 06-14-23 | 08:26 PM
  #4607  
mmarshall's Avatar
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 91,719
Likes: 90
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Default

Originally Posted by SW17LS
I have driven vehicles with 9 sec 0-60 times that were painful to drive they were so slow.
Maybe that is just where you and I differ. I don't find 9 seconds slow at all. I look more for comfort and versatility in a vehicle than speed, although I'll admit that some vehicles offer both.

Having said that, however, I did own an AWD non-turbo 2006 2.5L Outback, with the 4-speed automatic, that was rather slow even by my conservative standards. It was rated around 11 seconds or do to 60....and took its time getting up to speed. I liked Subaru's simple and efficient Symmetrical AWD system, but it just didn't have enough torque to overcome the added drag. The addition of the more-efficient CVT to Outbacks several years later dropped the 0-60 times a little...at the cost of transmission longevity / durability.
Old 06-14-23 | 08:42 PM
  #4608  
Striker223's Avatar
Striker223
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 12,211
Likes: 1,278
From: Ohio
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
Nine seconds is adequate for most normal driving situations.
Spoiler
 

I agree, that is all that is technically needed but I would require something that slow to have a larger/high TQ engine so I am not constantly spinning it out to just move normally. 3k rpm max, a diesel would be best actually.....

Cars of this class with good TQ like my Jeep or other larger engine heavy SUVs feel fine to drive but can be annoying to live with on interstates etc or when you need to pass/anything that requires power. You are forced to plan very far ahead and you do not have ability to react dynamically to much if at all, it's okay for a simple drive/commute but if you commonly deal with higher speed interchanges etc a 6 sec or so car is much much better since it will allow you to dictate position in traffic better etc. Cars of that level with again, high TQ engines are very relaxed to drive and since they don't need much RPM not annoying like econoboxes that you always have to spin out to get moving even reasonably.

Last edited by Striker223; 06-14-23 at 08:47 PM.
Old 06-14-23 | 09:25 PM
  #4609  
SW17LS's Avatar
SW17LS
Thread Starter
Lexus Fanatic
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 58,389
Likes: 2,796
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
Maybe that is just where you and I differ. I don't find 9 seconds slow at all. I look more for comfort and versatility in a vehicle than speed, although I'll admit that some vehicles offer both.

Having said that, however, I did own an AWD non-turbo 2006 2.5L Outback, with the 4-speed automatic, that was rather slow even by my conservative standards. It was rated around 11 seconds or do to 60....and took its time getting up to speed. I liked Subaru's simple and efficient Symmetrical AWD system, but it just didn't have enough torque to overcome the added drag. The addition of the more-efficient CVT to Outbacks several years later dropped the 0-60 times a little...at the cost of transmission longevity / durability.
The issue is the 0-60 time will not necessarily tell you how lethargic a car will feel, it has to do with gearing and ratios in everyday driving. We don't go flat out WOT every time. The car I am thinking is my cousin's Rogue which does 0-60 in 9 seconds and feels extremely lethargic.
Old 06-14-23 | 10:27 PM
  #4610  
Stroock639's Avatar
Stroock639
Lexus Test Driver
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,209
Likes: 257
From: Long Island
Default

Originally Posted by AJT123
Oh yeah, as soon as they bumped it up to 290hp with the vvti it became the fastest luxury car until the W220 came along with the 5.0 and even then it was close.

1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....

As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
i'm happy i was able to find this, but in 1999 mercedes conducted an "unbiased" test of the S500 vs LS 400 vs 740i vs XJ8 and what a surprise! mercedes concluded in their test that their car was best


they list the LS's 0-60 time as over 7 seconds and then have the nerve to say that time was "provided by the manufacturer" lol... well we all know what the W220's legacy is now so oh well
Old 06-15-23 | 05:22 AM
  #4611  
link13's Avatar
link13
Lead Lap
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,198
Likes: 47
From: CA, Mid OC
Default

Originally Posted by AJT123
220 horsepower was a lot of power for 1992 or 1993. But it was still slow, in the 9s 0-60. It must have been heavy.
Mine was about as optioned down as possible. It was a rare one that did not have a sunroof. It had leather and that was it (there was a guy in PNW who had one with cloth interior….cloth). Weight was 3690 lbs. which was heavy for 220 bhp in my opinion. It was never painful to drive. I just had to plan ahead. I do anyway.
Old 06-15-23 | 05:26 AM
  #4612  
Margate330's Avatar
Margate330
Lexus Test Driver
 
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 7,535
Likes: 1,039
From: FL
Default

Originally Posted by Stroock639
i'm happy i was able to find this, but in 1999 mercedes conducted an "unbiased" test of the S500 vs LS 400 vs 740i vs XJ8 and what a surprise! mercedes concluded in their test that their car was best

https://youtu.be/rNeKMMWPGWA?t=504

they list the LS's 0-60 time as over 7 seconds and then have the nerve to say that time was "provided by the manufacturer" lol... well we all know what the W220's legacy is now so oh well
Mercedes did it's own unbiased test?
Now that's funny. lol

I will check out your video.
Old 06-15-23 | 06:13 AM
  #4613  
Lwerewolf's Avatar
Lwerewolf
Racer
 
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 258
From: Sofia
Default

Originally Posted by Striker223
I agree, that is all that is technically needed but I would require something that slow to have a larger/high TQ engine so I am not constantly spinning it out to just move normally. 3k rpm max, a diesel would be best actually.....
Try a Yaris with the 1.8l - it's 9.4 to 100kph (so ~9.0 to 60) but it has pleeeeeeeeeeenty of "go".

You don't really mind revs in a manual hatch - that's kind of the point . If it's a luxobarge, that's a different story, but even then it could be that the engine is heavily biased towards low-end grunt.

Why would you need lots of power to pass something on a million lane interstate?
Old 06-15-23 | 07:31 AM
  #4614  
AJT123's Avatar
AJT123
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,093
Likes: 246
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

Originally Posted by SW17LS
The issue is the 0-60 time will not necessarily tell you how lethargic a car will feel, it has to do with gearing and ratios in everyday driving. We don't go flat out WOT every time. The car I am thinking is my cousin's Rogue which does 0-60 in 9 seconds and feels extremely lethargic.
This is true also. It's like that stupid turbo CRV loaner my mom had that I drove around. I'm sure it lays down a decent 0-60 time nearly as good or even better than her Enclave but in the real world it was so slow she felt in danger driving it, and I couldn't live with it either because the lag was so bad. Enclave is hardly an X5M but the GM 3.6 is potent and delivers strong torque, Enclave has good "pickup" even if it's not some dragster, she was thrilled to get it back. Hit the gas and immediately there's power. And it's different with different cars also just power delivery, get into an old 3800 which was about 8-9 seconds (NA) and they felt good.

5-60 is actually a better test of real world pickup. And NA cars beat the you know what out of the turbos.

Originally Posted by Stroock639
i'm happy i was able to find this, but in 1999 mercedes conducted an "unbiased" test of the S500 vs LS 400 vs 740i vs XJ8 and what a surprise! mercedes concluded in their test that their car was best
l
Yeah you can't ever trust manufacturers' tests, that's hilarious. All those cars have strengths but LS400 had the least amount of weaknesses.

Originally Posted by link13
Mine was about as optioned down as possible. It was a rare one that did not have a sunroof. It had leather and that was it (there was a guy in PNW who had one with cloth interior….cloth). Weight was 3690 lbs. which was heavy for 220 bhp in my opinion. It was never painful to drive. I just had to plan ahead. I do anyway.
3600lbs actually isn't that heavy IMO, but it or gearing or both were the reason it was slower. Also for example, just back then an ES300 would beat the GS which was significantly more expensive. Not that the GS wasn't a proper Lexus.
Old 06-15-23 | 08:56 AM
  #4615  
bitkahuna's Avatar
bitkahuna
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 75,651
Likes: 2,596
From: Present
Default

i read an article that bmw is done with stick and dual clutch transmissions for good (except for what they already sell).
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.

Old 06-15-23 | 11:04 AM
  #4616  
AJT123's Avatar
AJT123
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,093
Likes: 246
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

Originally Posted by bitkahuna
i read an article that bmw is done with stick and dual clutch transmissions for good (except for what they already sell).
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.
And some stay the same. These EVs aren’t selling around here minus Teslas which are cult vehicles. EVs stacked on MB lots even with discounts in the windows. I haven’t seen one EV MB on the road. I’ve seen one Lightning. I have not seen one EV BMW yet.
Old 06-15-23 | 11:54 AM
  #4617  
AJT123's Avatar
AJT123
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,093
Likes: 246
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

On another note, we’ve talked about this before but Mercedes brake dust is a real thing and it’s annoying. After just one drive there’s dust. I just washed it yesterday and this already.

Old 06-15-23 | 12:10 PM
  #4618  
geko29's Avatar
geko29
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,184
Likes: 342
From: IL
Default

There are lower dust but still well-performing pads available. In the BMW community iSweep 1500 and 2000 are very popular, they might be made for your application. 1500 is supposed to be OE performance with almost zero dust, and 2000 more bite than stock with very little dust. Akebono is another great option. They were stock on my wife's Q7 and had very little dust, I replaced them with what I thought were the only OEM pads--made by Textar--and they dust horribly.
Old 06-15-23 | 12:32 PM
  #4619  
link13's Avatar
link13
Lead Lap
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,198
Likes: 47
From: CA, Mid OC
Default

I had 2 3IS F Sports and the brake dust with factory pads was terrible. In both cars, I replaced the brake pads with Sumitomo pads, which bite a bit less and dust a LOT less. If it was a braking performance downgrade, it wasn’t significant enough to notice in a daily driver.
Old 06-15-23 | 01:58 PM
  #4620  
AJT123's Avatar
AJT123
Lexus Champion
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,093
Likes: 246
From: Knoxville, TN
Default

Oh the brakes work fantastically.... including from 120MPH back down to 85 quickly and effortlessly.

But damn if you can't take it around the block without those pretty wheels getting dust on them!



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.